Minnesota Man Sentenced to 90 Days in Jail, May Lose 2A Rights After Fatal Shooting of Teen Burglar

Minnesota Man Sentenced to 90 Days in Jail, May Lose 2A Rights After Fatal Shooting of Teen Burglar

(Photo by Pat Christman/Mankato Free Press)

A Minnesota man who shot and killed a teenager attempting to rob his home has been sentenced to 90 days in jail, two years of probation, and 100 hours of community service.

David Allen Pettersen, 65, was charged with second-degree manslaughter following January’s fatal incident. As part of a plea deal, Pattersen pleaded guilty to felony dangerous discharge of a firearm and was sentenced yesterday by Watonwan District Court Judge Gregory Anderson.

“I do not perceive him as a threat to public safety,” Anderson said at the sentencing, according to local news outlets. “He acted out of fear and maybe some stupidity.”

Anderson also said he believed Pettersen is remorseful, a decision based in part on the statements Pettersen made during the course of the trial.

“I take no satisfaction from his death and I will carry that awful responsibility with me for the rest of my life,” Pettersen said. “But none of you who wish to call me a murderer were there that morning.”

On the morning in question, Pettersen awoke to find three teenagers attempting to break into his home. One of them, 18-year-old Kyle Thomas Nason, had already climbed onto the balcony of Pettersen’s bedroom window.

Retrieving a .45-caliber handgun, Pettersen ran to his front door, where he saw two other teenagers— 18-year-old Cornelius Ayers Jr. and 19-year-old Nicolas Thomas Embertson—in a car alongside Nason.

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

But as the car drove away, Pettersen shot at the car in what he says was an attempt to shoot out the tires. Instead, he struck Embertson, who died shortly thereafter.

“Mr. Pettersen consciously took the law into his own hands,” said Embertson’s mother, Tracy McCabe.

“My son was not a threat to him,” she said. “My son did not enter his home. He was given a death sentence.”

The pre-sentence investigation initially proposed a sentence of 180 days in jail, which Judge Anderson cut in half.

SEE ALSO: Homeowner Charged with Manslaughter, Forced to Surrender Firearms for Shooting Alleged Burglar

Defense Attorney James Fleming argued that the “unusual circumstances” of the incident also warranted a stay of imposition, which would have reduced the charge to a misdemeanor after the sentence was completed.

“To hang a felony conviction on him for the rest of his life under these circumstances is not justice,” he argued.

But Anderson disagreed, and Pettersen will have to live with the consequences of a felony conviction, which include a revocation of his Second Amendment rights.

Cornelius Ayers Jr., one of Embertson’s accomplices, admitted the trio was intending to burglarize Pettersen’s home. He was sentenced to 15 days in jail. Kyle Thomas Nason was sentenced to 45 days in jail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Bryan August 3, 2020, 4:02 pm

    Another young thug off the streets…now he won’t grow up to kill someone, or several…the man shouldn’t have been charged…

  • Ben August 3, 2020, 1:18 pm

    they were trying to run him down in his front door?
    If you have to chase them to shoot them, you’re probably wrong

  • Mr. Charles July 26, 2017, 10:43 am

    A very sad situation indeed. “You do not shoot someone who is retreating.” First you may arm yourself and get in a safe place or defensive position and dial 911. If they enter your home, you then have the right to protect yourself, up to and including means that may cause great bodily harm or death. It is not a wise to run to the front door or outside and gain further exposure. In this case the boys were no longer a threat and were retreating. When you fire on them at this point you become the aggressor. The Judge did the right thing. With some of the comments on here I would hazard to think that some of you had a CCL.
    Mr. Charles, Former LEO and Certified CCL Instructor/

    • CommanderKojak July 29, 2017, 7:00 am

      Amen Brother…

    • COMMUTATUS July 19, 2019, 7:58 am

      Agreed, most state laws specifically address “quitting the fight”. Once the original aggressor(s) retreat the threat no longer exists to justify the threat of, or the use of, Deadly Force.

  • Ron Miller July 20, 2017, 3:42 pm

    Total bull to go jail at all they were breaking in and they were thugs who need to be shot so they dont rob some old lady and kill her next. Liberal bull shi needs to get fixed and figure out that if a thug wants to be a thug its there choice so they should find out that if they do the crime the payment might and should be death on site.

  • John July 19, 2017, 8:41 pm

    QUOTE “My son was not a threat to him,” she said.

    No he would have been a threat to EVERYONE else if he had gotten away. In Illinois the other two men would have been charged with their friends death…NOT the victim!!

  • robert July 17, 2017, 7:35 pm

    I read the article several times. Either the perp was on the balcony or running alongside the car. Confusing. None the less putting a round through the tire of a moving vehicle is impressive no doubt. That would require considerable skill and confidence. That being said why did he not put two rounds in the suspects chest as he entered through the balcony? Because there was no break-in or a threat to life. They are three jackasses for committing this crime and he is a bigger fool for thinking he can pull off a “John Wayne” shot.
    There are too many holes in this story………..

    • Red July 18, 2017, 2:17 pm

      The police can do the exact same action and are exonerated of any crime, but a victim cannot. Laws need to be served equally to all.

  • WT July 16, 2017, 7:27 pm

    This is horse SHIT if you plan a robbery You or they ARE GUILTY HE OR THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED! Let GOD sort them out !!! I bet they was not gonna give owner a chance ! What’s your opinion !

    • PmP July 17, 2017, 8:56 am

      No your right,.. they broke the law and they should live with the consequences,…at least IMO, but we live in a civilized society where we have a set of governing laws,.. and once they were retreating and running away,…. pretty sure most the time,.. like 99% or better,.. you no longer have the right to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back (unless your a cop ..LOL ) once your safety is secure. While I get what your saying,…. two broken laws don’t make a right,

      • AJ January 18, 2019, 9:25 pm

        Exactly… The only case I’ve seen where someone was justified in shooting a fleeing perp was when the perp was still firing at him while running away. I believe that guy got off with a lawful shoot. But this guy should’ve called 911. Shooting tires is always a nogo, just like warning shots.

  • jERRY sACHWEN July 15, 2017, 11:43 am

    looks like teen should not have been in a group thaT looks like “all” knew what was going to ACT OUT theft

  • Kevin July 15, 2017, 11:30 am

    He wasn’t a threat because the home owner defended himself and his family before there was a threat . If you make a decision to break into someone’s home you must be willing to except what ever comes with it . You hate to hear of an 18 year old losing his life , but he made his division ,now his family has to deal with it .

  • Glenn61 July 15, 2017, 7:05 am

    Well, DUH..!,,
    if your doing the right thing and defending yourself in your home, you don’t grab a gun and run outside to shoot out the tires of the get away car and end up killing someone who may have just been along for the ride….
    If the stupid old man would have confronted the actual burglar that forced his way inside his house, he could have emptied the magazine and no charges would have been filed.
    So, yeah, the court will have his right to own guns revoked.

  • Paul Crosley July 14, 2017, 7:33 pm

    Sounds like one less “din do nuffin” on the street.

  • Anthony kay July 14, 2017, 6:06 pm

    Had the mother knew and taught her son just the 10 commandments, she would have spared him the death sentence he got. Don’t ignore the real problem!! It is the lack of moral and civil education. Forget religions, but pickup the moral code they teach! Something’s gotta give to set good change in motion!! And no! $$Money is not going to solve this problem for you!!

  • 9mm forever July 14, 2017, 5:56 pm

    Take my word for it — this gentleman is the Poster Boy for why, after you have to shoot someone,
    you must SHUT UP and LAWYER UP.

    • Andrew Reagan July 14, 2017, 10:11 pm


    • Andrew N July 15, 2017, 1:37 pm

      Agreed. You only say two words….Law Yer!

  • jackie July 14, 2017, 5:37 pm

    No one “DESERVES TO DIE”, no matter what they do.. I know it’s hard to wrap your head around it..No they NEVER should have tried to rob that house and Yes that man had every right to defend himself and his family. Like he said, he was trying to shoot out the tire to stop them. People do stupid things, especially in their teens and even twenties! but dying for it isn’t right. Prayers for BOTH sides of the families whose lives were torn apart.

    • williw July 14, 2017, 7:49 pm

      if they had made their way in, hit you over the head, raped your daughter and beaten your wife up~ almost raping her?
      then would you still maintain your ideology that no one deserves to die.. if so, in replying don’t live your address.

    • Grey July 14, 2017, 8:02 pm

      Wrong Jackie.. If you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.. Poke the tiger and you will lose your life.

    • Jr July 14, 2017, 8:31 pm

      To bad it wasn’t my house cuz all 3 would be dead.

      • Rouge1 July 16, 2017, 12:59 pm

        And buried.

    • Charles July 14, 2017, 8:31 pm

      Hey Jackie…come with two of your buddies and try to rob me and then tell me what you deserve. I’m in Florida where you are allowed to get what you deserve.If you listen to the mothers remarks you see see what the problem is right away. The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree. Look at her ,blaming some one else for her poor parenting and contributing to her child’s demise. I don’t wish this on any any person however you reap what you sew.

    • Dilligaf July 14, 2017, 8:53 pm

      If someone breaks into my house, immediately I feel threatened. I will shoot to kill every single time. I will eliminate the threat. I am not giving whoever the option to return fire so that I or my family is injured or killed. I am not stopping to ask the intruders age or if they are armed before I fire either. My safety and the safety of my family is my number one priority.

    • Roger July 14, 2017, 10:03 pm

      Hi Jackie,
      Kindly shove your prayers up your ass! There are MANY people in this world who deserve to die. Wrap your silly liberal head around this:
      Murder of Jan Pawel and Quiana Jenkins Pietrzak
      Pietrzak was a Polish American who joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 2003. After a tour in Iraq as a helicopter mechanic, Pietrzak returned to the United States, where he met and married Jenkins. Together, they owned and lived in a house in Winchester, a census-designated place in Riverside County, California, located near the Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton, where Pietrzak worked.

      On October 15, 2008, four Marines entered the Pietrzak home, sexually assaulted Jenkins-Pietrzak and tortured the couple before killing them. Two of the four accused Marines worked under Pietrzak’s command. Despite efforts to convey the event as being racially motivated, Riverside County authorities maintain the motivation was robbery, and the pending murder with special circumstances and sexual assault charges do not include an assertion that the crime was racially motivated. All four of the accused plead not guilty to murdering Pietrzak and his wife.

      After meeting with the families of the deceased, District Attorney Rod Pacheco decided to seek the death penalty on January 22, 2009. The preliminary trial hearings to determine whether the four assailants would stand trial occurred on March 26, 2009,[2] and April 3, 2009 in San Diego.[3]

      On 24 June 2013 a jury recommended the death penalty for two of the four assailants and life in prison without parole for a third. The fourth assailant was later also sentenced to death.[4]

    • TJ Jackson July 14, 2017, 11:16 pm

      We all know that Jackie would rather see her husbands head smashed in or her children raped than to take the life of a poor, misunderstood, child, no matter his age. I pray Jackie gets to show us all her virtue when this will happen to her family. I will wait with baited breath and she lectures us about her generosity by ignoring the impulse to defend her family while they were scared for life.

      I hope we get to see her virtue signaling soon. But I will pay for her family and the other families that are destroyed because of her ignorance and inability to face evil and its consequences.

      I also pray that this judge realizes a 15 day sentence for someone who has attempted to rob a house which resulted in the death of someone needs a frontal lobotomy. I urge the fellow undocumented freight removers to visit the residence of the judge.

  • Danny July 14, 2017, 5:32 pm

    This is the risk you take when you are committing a crime. It’s more of a tragedy for the innocent guy protecting himself and property. This should be a oh well case!!

    • mike eberhart July 14, 2017, 7:35 pm

      you’re absolutely right danny. i blame his mother for not raising him to be an honorable citizen instead of trying to defend him for a cowardly &unlawful act.what good is the 2nd amendment when judges on the bench don’t uphold the law

    • Jon doe July 14, 2017, 9:18 pm

      He wasnt protecting anything, they were driving away. Theres no self defense there. Just stupidity.

  • RTW365 July 14, 2017, 5:04 pm

    WOW…I don’t get it either. I would think the mommy of the dead criminal would be ashamed of what her son and his thug friends attempted to do, instead of making nonsense excuses. I’m glad I don’t live in the shit-hole state of Minn-scrotum!

    • Douglas July 15, 2017, 12:54 am

      So are we.

    • Glenn61 July 15, 2017, 7:07 am

      he shot a kid in the car, outside, not the one breaking in….

  • Dwayne July 14, 2017, 4:19 pm

    Sadly, dimmercraps have made it so that thugs rights outweigh those of defenders of life and property.

  • Craig July 14, 2017, 3:39 pm

    We are sending a message to burglars and thieves that we are not allowed to defend our property and ourselves . Anybody that engages in that sort of activity deserves what they get.

    • Jon doe July 14, 2017, 9:20 pm

      There was no defensive action. They were driving away. He was in the wrong.

      • Bernard Cobb July 16, 2017, 10:33 pm

        The two thugs running were accomplices . In most real States i.e. Texas they are just as guilty as the one committing the crime. The mother is a idiot as well as the Judge. Good grief I can’t believe the liberals are that stupid.

  • DonM July 14, 2017, 3:28 pm

    I hope the other two punks die soon. Then the local law abiding residents will be safer.

  • No justice here July 14, 2017, 3:25 pm

    Is this judge on crack? That lib pos gives 15 and 45 days respectfully while they were committing attempted murder! And he slaps the victim with a felony and 180 days!
    What a moron.
    This just goes to show what happens when you let liberal judges get entrenched. They become emboldened by their ideology and forget about facts.

    • Don Dineen July 14, 2017, 10:38 pm

      He got off easy.

  • Ryan July 14, 2017, 2:58 pm

    I don’t get it.. The perpetrators according to him were trying to run him over as they passed him, any local police officer would have done the same thing why are they treating him any different. Fleeing suspects get shot all the time… And no officer loses his/her constitutional rights over it. If anything they get paid administrative leave for the good deed they graced there town with. One less thug.

    • Don Dineen July 14, 2017, 3:37 pm

      That’s the issue. “They tried to run him over, a threat, but missed and past him by”. Had he shot into the windshield as it was coming (I’d be running out of the way) instead of at the side or back of the car he’d likely have gone free.

  • frank noce July 14, 2017, 2:51 pm

    To the mother of the dead burglar who claims the boy was no threat to the man who’s house he invaded. Your son was a menace to society and if not stopped would probably down the road robed ,raped or killed. My hats off the this brave man who stood up for his rights and property and inadvertently took one more scum bag off the street. The judge who punished this man just chalked up one for the bad guys.

  • skipNclair July 14, 2017, 2:39 pm

    You fuck with the bull, you get the horns, it’s that simple. At first, I was not going to comment on this but having thought it over for a few hours I could not let this go. And while I might be preaching to the choir, let us hope that some bleeding heart will learn that the best way for some to learn is not by hugs and kisses, but by examples. Back in the days when men were men, and women were damn proud of it, these thugs might have all been killed just for stealing chickens. watermelons, a horse or who knows what, And knowing that is what prevented many from doing the above. A man came to another man’s castle with the intent of doing something evil then he paid the price and the community and the sheriff said well had he not been there he would still be with us. This all started with the criminal, and nobody, not the judge or anyone else knows what the intentions of these thugs were, up to and including the real victim here, David Allen Patterson. Now looking at how crime was back in the day and how it has progressed to the point of embarrassments it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out which way is or was better, the hugs and kisses approach, oh he is just confused, or growing boy or whatever the lame ass excuse, or fuck with the bull get the horns, I vote for as I lived it, I like and know for fact fuck with the bull get the horns is best. Now the mother had she taught this may not be in mourning and if he had a father figure around (not mentioned in the article) the same. The judge is a disgrace to the human race and his decision making should be left to shopping chores or minor things, not those that affect others lives. I have zero sympathies for the deceased, he made a decision one of which we do not know the intent or how bad it may or may not have been for the true victim I have none for the parents especially the mother, as she will never admit her failures and wishes to place blame in anything but the truth. The other criminals with him hopefully have learned, and they should be in prison for more severe crimes. Mr. Patterson you sir have my sympathy, however knowing how today’s society thinks and all of its weakness you might have used this knowledge before squeezing off the rounds. You are being made an example to show others they have to be dependant on other things than themselves, but I believe bad laws make good laws look bad. But one should always remember in life you fuck with the bull you get the horns.

  • GS54 July 14, 2017, 2:32 pm

    For all the keyboard “all three punks deserved to die” posters… if caught and taken to trial, is the death sentence on the table for felony burglary? Did the shooting by the homeowner result from “self-defense”? At no time in our CHL class were we told that shots fired outside of defense of self or family, or imminent danger to others, was legitimate. I have no issues with deeming a threat in my house as justifiable use of deadly force. This shooting did not fit the criteria.

    • Ken P. July 17, 2017, 12:07 am

      I majored in Communications (many years ago) but couldn’t have stated it any better.

  • Mjorin July 14, 2017, 2:17 pm

    I hope all three of the robbing thugs smoke a turd in hell!

  • Grant Stevens July 14, 2017, 1:32 pm

    Anyone who invades the home of another is fair game. These individuals were well beyond the age of consent and were entirely responsible for their actions. Men their age were fighting in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. This was nothing more than natural selection at work, removing a human defect from the gene pool before he could reproduce. Pettersen should be completely exonerated and given a public service award for ridding society of a potential career criminal. The only thing “tragic” in all of this are the parents and the system who enabled these “teenagers” to do what they did. Bad actions have consequences. At least one of these “teenagers” won’t be able to play “three strikes and your out.”

    • GS54 July 14, 2017, 2:37 pm

      Except the punks were no longer in his house, on his property, or posing a threat to Pettersen. Hell yes, I would be pissed. Deadly force as they sped away? Nope. Did you EVER do stupid stuff as a teen (not to include or condone burglary)?

  • JohnE July 14, 2017, 1:07 pm

    It is amazing that anyone morns the death of a criminal. No one forced him to be an idiot. No one forced him to burglarize a home. He and his accomplices deserved to die. We need to stop punishing people from defending themselves and their property.

  • Dan July 14, 2017, 1:07 pm

    Partner2 in crime while committing a felony. The “youths” with the driver should get life for the death that occurred as a result of their burglary and the attempted murder with a vehicle. Joe citizen should walk home free. Judge is a moron.

  • USMCM14 July 14, 2017, 12:59 pm

    Sounds like Minnesota is turning into another “Little KOMMIEFORNIA !!!!”

    • loupgarous December 9, 2018, 1:57 am

      The state that elected that grabby little shit Al Franken to the Senate… not surprised.

  • Daniel July 14, 2017, 12:56 pm

    Teens? WTF they are all 18 or older that makes them listed as adults to the law and society. Why do they insist on calling these adults teens or kids? they are not.

    • steve July 14, 2017, 1:54 pm

      i get what you’re saying, but what exactly do you think the word, “teenager” means? lol.

      • frank noce July 14, 2017, 4:48 pm

        What teen ager has come to mean is that anyone under 20 gets some kind of pass because their sooo young.
        If you want to keep a person below a certain age as tooo young to be responsible then they should be kept on a lease or behind a fence like an unruly dog.
        There are always a percentage of young people that are wiser a more adult than most adults ,these individuals should be given special statuses full fledged adults. On the other end of the scale there are a certain percentage of the population that should never be given the privileges of adults.

  • walt July 14, 2017, 12:56 pm

    the mother says the shooter gave her son a death sentence. Her son wouldn’t have been shot if he wasn’t there, trying to break into someone’s house. If parents would play a more active roll in raising their children, this would not have happened. so Who really gave that kid a death sentence? The victim as I see it, is not the kid who died, but the resident of the home that was being broke into.

  • Ed July 14, 2017, 12:49 pm

    What state was this??????? Oh yeah, Minnesota, right!!!!!!!!!! Don’t they have the most liberal and ridiculous Senator, Al Franken representing them????? Right……… And also Amy Klobuchar too………What do you expect from such ultra liberal idiots that run the politics in that state?????? Time to clean house America, and get rid of these idiots that think the criminals in our country have more rights than the law abiding American citizens.

    If those kids would have killed the home owner, they’d probably have gotten probation in that state, and felt sorry for because they had a troubled childhood. Makes me puke.

  • Mike Bolton July 14, 2017, 12:45 pm

    So a cop can murder anyone they like, and all they have to do is say they “feared for thier life”, but that standard doesnt apply to a man woken by intruders.

    • Don Dineen July 14, 2017, 3:41 pm

      A cop could not shoot under similar circumstances per Garner v. Tennessee.

      • Elapid King May 4, 2019, 5:42 am

        Yet cops do so routinely, and are nearly never held accountable for their actions.

  • Rich K. July 14, 2017, 12:44 pm

    Sorry, but the law should be 100% on the side of the would-be burglary victim. The laws need to be re-written so that if you attempt to rob someone, you are literally taking your own life into your hands. The only way to reduce crime is to make it clear that nobody is on the side of the criminal, and criminal acts against law-abiding citizens re-classified as “attempted suicide”.

    • Rich K. July 14, 2017, 12:47 pm

      Incidentally, I approve of the state laws that say that, if you are in the act of committing a crime, and someone dies – even one of your criminal cohorts – you are guilty of murder.

  • Marlon Knighton July 14, 2017, 12:35 pm

    Should have been aiming for the drivers head. To bad he didn’t kill all 3 punk thieves.

    • Oldwestman July 14, 2017, 11:07 pm

      I have a few concerns here 1. why did he wait so long to fire, why not fire when the perp was on the balconey? 2. If he was aiming for the tires how did the round enter the vehicle high enough to fatally strike the man? 3. He was fleeing the scene and no longer on the man’s property and had not fired at the man so the home owner should not have fired on him, instead he should have been reading the cars plate number. 4. If you are going to defend yourself and family and property with a firearm you must think fast and be very familiar with the law before you pull the trigger. You must study and restudy the laws until they are second nature to you. With great power comes great responsibility.

  • V July 14, 2017, 12:29 pm

    The law related to this aspect of self defense must be clarified and expanded..
    Once an individual or group initiates a violent felony.. Properly they and their accomplices must be the ones responsible for any and all negative consequences..and no one else.

    That is already the law.. It is not being interpreted properly by prosecutors deliberately for political and ideological purposes With the very clear purpose to suppress the citizens right to self defense by harassing/holding citizens who defend themselves to a higher standard of conduct than even Peace Officers who have been hired and specifically trained to limit their use of force to that which is required to effect an arrest or stop a legitimate threat.

    For example if during a store robbery and police fire upon the suspected perpetrator/s (attempting to flee or not) and either they or the criminal/s strike an innocent bystander.. The criminal/s who initiated the event are charged with the murder/wounding of the innocent bystander/s.

    It is not logically consistent and a twist of reason to require (as oppose to prefer) a member of the General Citizenry engaged in self defense to stop the use of force once the event has begun.. The standard should be ..Is the use of force part of the continuum of force.. ie contained within the same event?. As it is not even knowable as to the motivation and intent of the criminal …. attackers who may to some appear to be attempting to desist or withdraw may be doing so with the intent to attack from another avenue. Therefor until until the threat is very clearly gone out of sight or sound anything that occurs is on them as a part of the initial incident and the consequences belong to the initiator/criminal/s.

    While we might prefer a defender not do so…an attacker shot and laying on the floor until them have been secured by Peace Officers remain a threat and if the victim who has not initiated the violence nor is a trained and experienced in the use of force in the moment dumps a few more rounds to insure his or her safety.. That has to be viewed as reasonable as well.

    So we must change the way we view and legally deal with use of force incidents..

    Once the line has been crossed by felony behavior… the consequences must all belong to the perpetrator/s

    Why?… we see police all the time half lose their minds in the middle of hot pursuits, in the middle of fights and use what someone not in the moment views as excessive force.. Why does this happen?.. Because the nature of human beings is fight or flight and even Peace Officers who are trained and expected to use limited force are also caught up by that human nature (Big Surprise that they want to keep fighting with someone who placed their lives in danger)
    That is an unnatural switch to turn off at the snap of a casual observers or prosecutors whim.

    To expect a citizen not continuously trained in the limited use of force and engaged in such activities as a part of his or her daily employ… to constantly to act with such restraint is wholly unreasonable..

    This law can and must be changed/expanded either thru the legislatures or via Citizen Initiatives

    This problem also has to do with those who back the election of Prosecutors as well.. An aspect of politics largely ignored up to now. Something the NRA must become actively involved it since the other side has been for 40 years now.
    This should be part of the discussion as well. It is increasingly obvious and documented that Hundreds of Prosecutors in the US are being financially backed by Anti-Second Amendment activists to include well known and infamous international financiers and other globalists.

  • Justin July 14, 2017, 12:17 pm

    These people continue to reject that they are responsible for their actions. There is no way you would have been shot if you had not been in the getaway vehicle fleeing a crime scene.

    • meeester July 14, 2017, 12:53 pm

      I wonder if we could Abate our White Privilege a little if we started a GoFundMe page for mother of the year Tracy McCabe who be all sorrowful and sheeet.

    • Edgar July 14, 2017, 1:27 pm

      Three teens shot and killed in an Oklahoma burglary…… the driver a 21 year old woman faces murder charges….because she drove the teens to the house and she knew good and well that they were going to burglarize the home.
      Shame on Minnesota and the boys mom. The boy was actively involved in a burglary. He was not an innocent bystandet. It is very saddening that he died, but he was involved in Felony Crime that sometimes results in death.

  • Ernest Lipps July 14, 2017, 12:15 pm

    I realize my comment may be very well deleted but have to say this, who in the hell is that idiot Judge? If the driver attempted to run over him that is a felony giving him the right to shoot. This man did make two mistakes still that idiot of a Judge could have applied common sense and let the law be damned and the appeals court decide, that is if anyone would like to pursue it. The second mistake was not shooting at the car in its attempt to run over him as it was approaching him (the victim) not the 3 punks on his property. The first mistake and (most important) was overreacting should have retrieved weapon and waited calmly as possible until the punk entered and then let the 45 separate said punk from his last breath. Should I not comment like this, I will feel absolutely nothing in this scumbags death, better him than a decent citizen. Some of these sorry a** Judges need to be brought up on charges for the stupidity of their sentencing. Judge, I hope this gets printed and you access it and please know as a former police officer myself you sir are an idiot for ruining that mans life. What in hell would you have done Mr sitting on the mighty bench Judge if it had been you? Perhaps invited them in for cookies and milk. This country is going to hell in a handbasket so fast, enforcement of our laws has become a joke, politicians all ought to be given life sentences. Sigh’ why God do we even try?

    • Jaye July 14, 2017, 1:03 pm

      Well said.

    • Joe July 14, 2017, 1:21 pm

      The deciding factor in this (and similar) cases is the assailant was fleeing when shot. If he was fleeing, he was no longer a threat. Had he been shot while approaching the defendant (rather than fleeing), it would have been a justified shooting. A defensive action (the shooting) requires there to be a present danger to be justified. The moment he started to flee was (is) the moment in which a “defensive” action becomes an offensive action and when a shooting is no longer justified under the law.

      • Shuf July 14, 2017, 2:06 pm

        Nowhere in the article did it say the three suspects entered Mr Petterson’s house. If Mr Petterson had stayed inside his house after retrieving his firearm, he wouldn’t be in the legal mess he is in. Nope, he had to play Marshal Dillon & try to apprehend the suspects. If anyone is short a few brain cells it is Mr Petterson. Good job judge.

      • George Hovey July 14, 2017, 3:55 pm

        Not a lawyer, but this sounds like a reasonable criterion. Thanks for the clarification.

    • Larry Burnette July 14, 2017, 1:34 pm

      I totally agree with this ex police officer. If someone was trying to run me down I would definitely shoot at the car, he’s using a car as a deadly weapon that is a felony. My mother is a retired cop also. If I felt I was in danger I would not hesitate to shoot. Cops get away with all kinds of shootings but when we kill someone they want to put us in jail. Just a warning to the criminals a shoot expert if you have a death wish come to my house.

  • Erasetheweak July 14, 2017, 12:10 pm

    Lessons not learned in blood are soon forgotten……kill em all. Hes 65 so he doesnt have to suffer to long. If only more seniors will start killing these thugs, maybe things can get back to normal.

  • Seriously...Come on July 14, 2017, 11:55 am

    The three turds attempting to burgle him are not just kids who made a bad decision. They will end up in prison after continuously victimizing others for years. It will take several time, and they will be given several slaps on the wrist and reduced sentences. They will not be kept off our streets, they will not rehabilitate, and they will not participate as functional parts of our society. They are literally the scum of our society. And to top that statistically they would have come back again, or retaliated against him had he called the police. He should have had a better attorney. This man did the community a favor by killing one of them, and we punish him for it. Its only a shame he didn’t kill all three. Our justice system is a joke, and its failing us. There comes a point where folks eventually have to start taking the law into their own hands. Honestly I don’t think this was the time, but on the other hand I think the judge should recognize the difference between good guys and bad guys. Maybe the other two bad guys should have been charged with manslaughter, as they were also responsible for being there.

  • jim July 14, 2017, 11:54 am

    I am so pro-2A that some of my friends call me Gunrunner. However, if there is a law I would like to see, it is that anyone purchasing a handgun be required to attend, or show proof of having attended, a 4-hour course on “When is Lethal Force Justified”. It might have saved this man from killing another human being, and saved him from what he will go through and live with the rest of his life. Of course, he is now going to face a civil suit, which will destroy him.

    There is no justification for use of lethal force when there is no significant threat to you, or others around you. That is pretty much a universal tenet, and every person who owns a weapon needs to understand it. Additionally, to avoid losing everything you have in a civil suit, it is wise to know that you must use all means possible to disengage a threat, including full retreat, if needed. “Stand your ground”, may protect you from legal liability, but it WILL NOT protect you in a civil suit.

    Now, I want to know. how did these little f’heads only wind up with 15 and 45 day sentences? If it were not for their presence at the home, none of this would have happened.

    • SurvivalJake23 July 14, 2017, 12:51 pm

      You are an idiot, Jim! You can go “full retreat” like a pussy and real men will stand their ground, neutralize the threat so they’ll never harm another person. No one has lost a civil suit for standing their ground because it provides immunity from civil suits or at the least a defense.

    • tiredtom July 14, 2017, 12:57 pm

      no threat as they were driving away… use of lethal force only when no other choice… sorry for the guy but agree with above
      learn your states laws on use of lethal force 4 hours? maybe 8…. In my good old looney California.. love living here, hate the
      politicians running the state … I would have gone to jail a lot longer if that had been me… fleeing? damn! let ’em go, call the cops with description of car etc… or, like above, what for them to enter house then, even in crazy California, there’s some
      protection from the left-wing gun haters

    • Shuf July 14, 2017, 2:07 pm

      Right on Jim.

    • Joe July 14, 2017, 2:09 pm

      As a 1st generation CHL holder in Texas (now called “LTC”), I completely concur especially re. the part of the Civil lawsuit..!

  • WVinMN July 14, 2017, 11:53 am

    Maybe if this thug’s sperm receiver had actually behaved more like a mother, said thug would’ve avoided becoming a thug in the first place.

    • meeester July 14, 2017, 12:56 pm

      While it is reasonable of you to question the judges way of dealing with things here I can’t help but wonder why you left out Mother of the Year Tracy McCabe.

  • James D Burroughs Jr July 14, 2017, 11:46 am

    It is very sad that this instance resulted in the death of a teenager; however, the fact remains that this whole incident was called by the willful intent of these teenagers to burglarize, which is an illegal act, the home off a law-abiding citizen. The mother of the deceased teenager understandably is very distraught over the loss of her son, but the fact still remains that he was in the act often in illegal home invasion. Now whether or not he was pushed or led by his friends into the situation has no bearing on this case. He knew he was doing wrong.

    The problem that I have with this gentleman protecting his property was that he was no longer in danger because the young thieves(call them what they were) were trying to escape at the time of the shooting. Never shoot a man running away. I know that the adrenaline that surges through a person’s body when adverse conditions exist may continue well after the incident is over.

  • Don Dineen July 14, 2017, 11:30 am

    In some states owning black powder guns is prohibited for felons. Any firearm that uses the explosion of gun powder to expel a projectile is prohibited.
    Some crimes can be serious enough to fire upon the offender to prevent their escape. They are called “BARK” crimes, which are first degree offenses of burglary (nigh time occupied dwelling), Assault 1, Rape 1, and
    Kidnapping 1. For police lethal force cannot be used if the death penalty is not an option for a crime exists. For a home owner it is better to let the suspect flee.

  • Einar July 14, 2017, 11:15 am

    The kid was a hoodlum. No one knows how long he has been a hoodlum. They DO know he will never advance to a future threat to Society.

  • Rick July 14, 2017, 11:12 am

    Well Minisota can kiss my ass!! What if they are stealing my vehicle,can I soot at my own vehicle which did happen and my gun was with me that day I would have shot,also knowing I had clear background as he drove away,

  • Richard Pitts July 14, 2017, 11:04 am

    Join Texas Law Shield and they could have helped him that is a battery of attorneys that work under an insurance group.

    The threat is over when they are leaving usually ???

  • Scott Hateslibs July 14, 2017, 10:51 am

    And of course we always get to wonder what these precious “children” … “teens” … whatever euphemism the press chooses to make them seem so precocious and innocent would’ve done to the true victim, Mr. Petersen, if they’d gained access to his home and caught him unawares. More than likely, we’d read a story instead about how poor little teens were brought up in bad circumstances which of course were at fault, leading them to torture some unnamed old dude to death. Once again, the 2nd Amendment has been used to rob a gentle, sweet, harmless thug … OOPS! … “teen” of his life, one that surely would’ve been productive, full of kindness and charity toward all. BS. I just wish Mr. Petersen had had the foresight to let all three of these little cretins inside before blasting them, at least giving him a better chance during trial. Sympathy for these little demons? NADA.

  • Sam July 14, 2017, 10:47 am

    This is a perfect reason why you do not shoot at a fleeing perpetrator. He was trying to hit the tires, missed, and killed a man. It was an accident. If he had missed and hit a bystander, it would have been an accident. Even if a ricochet had entered a neighbors house and killed someone. If you or yours are not in danger, you do not shoot.

    • Don Dineen July 14, 2017, 11:35 am

      Reckless endangerment, a lesser crime of manslaughter. A shooter is responsible for each bullet launched. Every bullet has a civil suit attached to it as well as potential criminal charges. There are NO accidents.

    • Clay July 14, 2017, 11:36 am

      So true. We just had a case here in Seattle where a victim of a vehicle theft shot his Glock .40 at his car to shoot out the tires. He hit a elderly woman 2 blocks away that was in bed watching TV (Head shot) She wasn’t found for 3 days until relatives came over to check on her.

    • Stefan July 14, 2017, 4:01 pm

      I tried to steal change out of a cigarette machine in 1968. I got shot by a ricocheted .22lr. Hit in ankle while fleeing. Bullet lodged in knee and is there to this day. I got away and was fortunate to have a good friend whose father was a doctor tend to me, so no charges. I might have been killed. I was 16. These days, I am upstanding citizen, working 100 hours/week, supporting hundreds of people who rely on me directly or indirectly in my business. Good citizen who pays taxes. I love my cat. While I hate the bad guys as much as anyone, we are all a bit good, bad and ugly at times.

  • Donald Zerbe July 14, 2017, 10:45 am

    I was a Police officer for 39 yrs, the last 34 as Chief of the Hartleton PA. Police Dept.
    I lost my 2A RIGTHS for a DOLLAR AMOUNT over a 5 year period ( Making my Offense a FELONY ).
    I permitted violators ( 33- in 5yrs ) to agree to a PLEA BARGAIN , that if they DONATED into the local Playground Fund, their violation would be withdrawn. and they would not loose their driving rights for these violations ( ALL MONEY DID GO INTO THE PLAYGROUND FUND …I got $0.00 from this; but I was the one the court ordered to RE-PAY !!).( But only 2 violators showed up in court, but trail Judge ordered me to repay all 33 violator, and the State back for money they would have received “IF” those violators were found guilty in court. )
    I retired (Now 73 yrs old) living on S.S. Check, and don’t have the money to go to a higher court or to file for a PARDON !!
    Google HARTLETON POLICE CHIEF CHARGED, and read it .

    • Rick July 14, 2017, 11:16 am

      Where the hell is the NRA in your case,we will not keep get whipped..Come on NRA step up!!

    • Rick July 14, 2017, 11:16 am

      So where’s the NRA!!

      • Don Dineen July 14, 2017, 5:34 pm

        This was not a lawful use of a firearm. The NRA supports lawful and safe use of firearms.

    • V July 14, 2017, 1:18 pm

      Everyone should take a look at this BS Case..


      Hartleton Pa… Population 200 at the 2000 census..lol

      Talk about Mayberrry RFD ..

      “Hey Earl.. you were speeding … “I know Bob” $150 to park fund to buy the kids a swing set in the park good? Yeah that will work..

      Some ass hat to stupid to see the value to him and the community..

      Actually the Chief was what? Getting in the Judiciary, Prosecutor’s and Insurance rackets Rice Bowl. (Dey wants dat money)

      ” Prosecutors say 33 people accepted this deal over the past five years. Instead of the fines going to the state and Union County, drivers gave donations totaling $5,000 to the Hartleton playground fund. The citations were erased from the drivers’ records.”

      “Assistant District Attorney Jeff Crossland said, “This was Zerbe using his office to sell a favor. That’s what extortion is.”


      NO.. he and his Officer/s did not get a dime of the money.. and one could still choose to accept the ticket and fight it in court.

      No doubt the sorry sacks who initiated/prosecuted this whole “Witch Hunt” are miserable beings to begin with.

      Yes Chief you have truly been screwed and deliberately treated with great disrespect by a pack of greedy no doubt globalist supporting scum.. who are afraid such modest, reasonable and to some degree humorous conduct on the part of Peace Officers and their Departments .. Might Catch on..

      Sorry Chief… Stupid, destructive actions by Statists like you fell victim to… this is why we all support

      “Draining the Swamp”

      Time to Make America Great Again by putting reasonable and rational adults in charge.

      Oh and as a little bonus..

      Now let’s have but one example of how corruption really works.. (No one indicted let alone convicted of course)


    • David July 14, 2017, 2:58 pm

      This is nuts. It seems like people were out to get you because in malum prohibitum offenses (which are most crimes that don’t require intent – such as speeding tickets), the police officers generally have the ability to determine the charges, the same way a DA determines criminal charges for serious crimes.
      It seems as though the government in charge in Pennsylvania just wanted to make sure they kept the coffers filled. You should find a pro bono attorney to file an appeal before you lose that right. You cannot file an appeal on a stagnant charge, so get to emailing buddy!

  • pete July 14, 2017, 10:30 am

    Good sentence. Just outcome. Common sense prevails. Having and using a gun requires judgement even in the heat of the moment. Not all gun owners are up to it. Some wish for the wild west. God help us.

    • Scott Hateslibs July 14, 2017, 10:52 am

      Keep your tears for the little thug. My tears are for Mr. Petersen, who did us all a favor by removing a cancer from society.

      • jim July 14, 2017, 11:57 am

        Scott, I eagerly await your turn at “removing a cancer from society” who is no threat to anyone at the time you kill him. I am sure you are such a tough guy that you will not cry when the judge sentences you to prison, or when the civil suit which follows your stupid act takes EVERYTHING YOU HAVE, AND EVER WILL HAVE!

    • Alan July 14, 2017, 10:58 am

      Like many, your perception of the “Wild West” is way off.
      Many of our cities are FAR worse than the old West of yesteryear.

  • mauser6863 July 14, 2017, 10:28 am

    First of all, glad the “Good Guy” wasn’t hurt or killed. The “kid” got what they deserved and the accomplices should have been the ones charged with murder, not the shooter. In most states, if a bad guy is killed during a crime, his surviving compatriots are charged with murder, etc.

    I fault the “Good Guy” for making an honest and stupid mistake, he walked out of his home, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. He went looking for “Justice” and it found him. Can’t argue you were in “fear of your life” at that point or that you were protecting others.

    Regular citizens are not the police and don’t have the same duties or immunity that they do, period. If he was an off duty police officer and he left his home in pursuit of the bad guys and did the exact same actions, he would have never seen the inside of a courthouse.

    I’m sure he was happy to open his big mouth and talk to the police when they arrive on the scene. Instead of saying, “I was so scared, I thought I was going to die” and “I, have no further statements to make without an attorney present”. ZIP LIPS. Nice honest people talk themselves into jail all the time, especially the truly innocent.

    He took the plea deal too, which was really dumb and should have taken his chance with a jury. His peers, even in liberal Minnesota would have likely exonerated him.

    • Scott Hateslibs July 14, 2017, 10:56 am

      I disagree with your last statement. My wife is from Minnesota so I have the extreme displeasure of having to visit that socialist Utopia from time to time, mostly against my will! Knowing the people of that “fine” state, he wouldn’t stand a chance in hell. You could never imagine a more lefty, brain-washed group in your life unless you’d encountered them, as I have. The phrase I say to my wife more than any while we’re there? “Get me out of this insane asylum!”

      • jim July 14, 2017, 12:08 pm

        Scott, I burned you on your earlier comment, but I must compliment you on this one. Your understanding of MN is spot on. They have lost all sense of reality. What used to be an unbelievably beautiful state with warm, sensible people is now a trash heap with Liberal stupidity at it’s core. In one or two more generations, the state will be broke, and begging for a bailout from D.C. Their Governor, a descendant of the founder of Dayton-Hudson, is leaning toward Socialism, and taking the state with him. This is what happens when incredibly successful Capitalism rears people who care way to much about people who have no sense of responsibility.

  • Joseph July 14, 2017, 10:12 am

    As a homeowner and a “responsible”gun owner, he should of realized that the only person you can legally shoot is the idiot coming thru the window. Only cops can “shoot out the tires”while fleeing. Now if he shot at the driver if the car was coming towards him to run him over, that could of been another story

    • jim July 14, 2017, 12:18 pm

      Joseph, you don’t have it right, either. You cannot legally shoot someone coming through the window, unless you can convince the D.A. that you had sufficient reason to feel your life, or the life of others, was in imminent danger. When someone enters your home, NO magic wand waves a sign which reads, “You can legally kill this person”. Yes, you MAY be found justified, or you MAY be found to be a murderer. You want to roll the dice, be prepared for “snake-eyes”. I vividly recall a story in the early-70’s out of L.A. about a young man who was crawling through an open window late at night, and was shot dead. Turned out the young man was a soldier returning home from deployment, and wanted to surprise his family in the morning. His father shot him because he thought it was an intruder.

      You are also wrong about the cops legally being allowed to shoot out the tires. Without exception, the police can only fire their weapon in the direction of a fleeing suspect if they believe that suspect “significantly” poses a risk of serious injury or death to others.

      Your last sentence is correct.

      • Dan July 14, 2017, 1:14 pm

        As a retired chief LEO you are 100% correct

      • David July 14, 2017, 2:40 pm

        The common law Castle Doctrine says you can shoot somebody entering your window. That doctrine states that a man’s home is his castle and deadly force can be used on anyone entering if certain requirements are met. Many states even have statutory interpretations that do not require the homeowner to retreat before deadly force is used.

  • Albert Cromer July 14, 2017, 10:09 am

    This judge Anderson should have his cases reviewed for very bad judgement on his part. Had these admitted burglars gotten in they probably would have shown no mercy to their victim. I wonder what the judge would have done had he woken to burglars trying to enter his palace. I would think these burglars assumed the risk of their behavior with the attempt to break into this mans home. All three should have been given 10 years each if allowed. Many good home owners and tenants have suffered death and serious injury do to such invasions by so called kids or young men or teens or whatever you wish to call them., Lets get real here.

    • jim July 14, 2017, 12:51 pm

      Albert, I understand your frustration, but your assumptions cannot be supported by fact. Based on your statement, we should assume that ALL burglars will murder whoever is in the home, and we know that is absolutely false. The laws regarding justified use of force by civilians do not support killing someone for simple burglary. In fact, those very laws preventing use of deadly force make it prudent that every homeowner possess a means of protection against possible harm. Confronting a burglar with a 9mm in your hand, or even a machete, will stop him in his tracks. If he is stupid enough to push the issue, you then have justification for lethal action. I, too, think 15 and 45 days is a sham, though the judge was prohibited from posing any very lengthy sentence. Certainly should have been longer, though.

      • David July 14, 2017, 2:48 pm

        In most states you can kill somebody for burglary because it is presumed that if somebody enters your house, they have the intent to do harm or violence. Only a few states do not allow for that affirmative defense as a jury instruction.

  • Dan July 14, 2017, 9:59 am

    SO admit you are going to rob someone, do a few days in jail, get let out, do it again. Heck, you may be successful next time. I try feel for the Mother, and what the guy did was wrong, BUT they should not have been doing what they were doing in the first place. If they had not attempted the robbery, he would be alive today. Lets place the blame where it really should be placed. And in all truth, if this happened more often I think crime would go down in the long run. Cause-effect-benefit. Not worth it. If it was for drugs, give them all they can take and let them kill themselves. I’m being very harsh here but I’m real tired of the crime I see everyday on the web and where I live.

  • G July 14, 2017, 9:46 am

    Friend: No one home? No worries, I’ll come back later when you’re home.
    Burglar/Home Invader: Oh, someone awake and at home? No worries, we’ll drive away freely so we can come back later when you’re not home or you’re asleep and we can murder you without a struggle. Oh and you’d better not try to stop us in our rescheduling efforts or you’ll face charges.

  • Richard A Risler July 14, 2017, 9:40 am

    Bullcrap. should have been given a medal for help in cleaning up the gene pool.

  • Gotsigs July 14, 2017, 9:26 am

    So on the other hand if you are an officer of the law you would be innocent this happens all the time

    • jim July 14, 2017, 12:53 pm

      Where did you get that? An officer would also be up on charges for shooting into the escaping vehicle. There was no reason to suspect imminent significant harm to others, so you cannot shoot into a vehicle, regardless whether you are a civilian or PO.

    • Don Dineen July 14, 2017, 10:59 pm

      Many department SOPs prohibit shooting into vehicles – unless you are directly engaged in a life and death circumstance. Like the guy is shooting at you.

  • Patrick July 14, 2017, 9:20 am

    In Texas shooting into a moving car fleeing a crime scene is a felony. We love our guns, but you have to use them in a situation where you are in fear of your life or someone else’s life is under deadly threat (not someone running away from the scene). At night time it is lawful to use deadly force where someone has trespassed on your property and/or breaking or has broken into your home (even your neighbors home). This because you cannot see clearly to ascertain the threat, so basically not knowing whether they pose a threat or not cannot be determined, so deadly force becomes a legal option. But the truth is, the young man is responsible for his own death, you take a risk to illegally break into someone’s home. I think it is a fair sentence but make sure the message is clear, breaking into someone’s home is a crime and also sets up condition for deadly confrontation.

    • Doctor Moebius July 14, 2017, 9:39 am

      Exactly. Well said, Patrick, Agree completely.

    • Stellerseaeagle July 14, 2017, 10:27 am

      Your second amendment right is not absolute. When you use a gun, you need to know your lawful limitations. Shooting someone who is fleeing is not an effective defense. The court acted justly in this incident.

    • Robert July 14, 2017, 7:21 pm

      Petersen would be in prison here in Washington. Just the way our CHL instructor taught us. Shooting at a fleeing car once the threat is removed is illegal.

  • Brick July 14, 2017, 9:17 am

    In the age of liberal justice this will be the norm ESPECIALLY if “minotities” (a term of which no longer applies) were shot. Loot up don’t shoot. If given an inch and one possible “LEGAL” not moral prcecution the offenders become poor kids and the victim becomes the offender/legal defender.
    It’s a reversal and perversion of the law being used in a manner of which it was not intended.
    The homeowner we know should not have persued and definitely shoul not have fired under duress because he obviously wasn’t trained or capable of the shot.
    Unfortunately these days you have to let the assholes enter then shoot them dead. And even the you may be a victim of liberal gun bias. It’s embarrassing and pathetic this is what it has come to. Even if aerested for the burglary they wouldn’t have been severely enough punished.

  • clyde sawyer July 14, 2017, 9:17 am

    IT had to be one of OBUMA lLIB. judges who tried this case, no way should this man go to jail.

  • Clifford July 14, 2017, 9:13 am


    • Joe July 14, 2017, 10:17 am

      I think the man got caught up in the panic of the moment and let his emotions control his trigger figure much like what would happen with many of us who probably with 3 to one odds would fear a return by them if they saw an opportunity.

    • Ben July 14, 2017, 10:50 am

      Not going to shout an untruth, but you are dead wrong. Not shooting simply because the perp(s) are fleeing and not shooting at you, is very bad advice. Suppose it was you…perps had already broken in and you scared them off, but later realized they then went and killed a store clerk, with your shotgun. “Oh! I didn’t know they had stolen it!” is going to be your excuse? That’s why most TX trained LTCH holders know that the task is to STOP them. In this case, they committed a crime, before they actually entered the home. (think premises)

  • Mister Ronald July 14, 2017, 8:20 am

    All BURGLARS should be shot. If this guy was sleeping and not woke up and these three hoodlums got into that guys house, He would probably been the one that is dead.They more then likely would have killed him.
    The young thief got just what he deserved.

  • Fred July 14, 2017, 8:16 am

    If you allow criminals to break into peoples homes and then punish the home owner for defending his home, then there is something wrong with the legal system..Just another case of the law giving the criminal protection from punishment..The law seems to want to allow an excuse for criminal behavior..Not a good sign for the future..

    • Clifford July 14, 2017, 9:18 am

      FRED, READ YOUR FIRE ARMS TRAINING MANUAL. READ MY RESPONSE ABOVE. Knowing the law and your rights is all part of being a responsible gun owner. If all firearms owners exercise what they learn in firearms training classes, situations like wouldn’t happen.

      • Steve Welborn July 14, 2017, 10:35 am

        He was like most other people he wasn’t going to stop at the moment to read a manual I’m sure most people haven’t read for one reason or another. Don’t blame the home owner had I had a stick of dynamite I would probably have thrown it at the sorry criminals in the heat of that moment. The true fault is with those that think they can take what they want from other without possibly paying the ultimate price, go think on it. It is like the other day when x head of the FBI said folks the Russians are coming for America. That should have been a dam big red flag to all those liberal anti gun people. They better wake the hell up cause they also got China out there. Long live the NRA.

    • Eric July 14, 2017, 9:20 am

      I am all about protecting home and family. I’m locked and loaded nearly everywhere I go. But this guy shot at a car that was fleeing the scene. And he “accidentally” hitting this person. Anyone who has taken a concealed carry course knows that once the threat no longer exists, you stand down on the use of deadly force. It isn’t cut and dry but I don’t know about this one. . .

      • jim July 14, 2017, 1:08 pm

        Yes, you are correct, and it actually IS cut and dry. Nobody, police or civilian, can fire at a fleeing suspect unless they can show justification that there was a very reasonable expectation of injury or death to others by the suspect. If you witness a murder, and the suspect flees, you MAY have justification to fire at the suspect, but the D.A. will decide if you have broken the law. If you witness a rape, and the suspect flees, you have NO justification to fire at the fleeing suspect. Why? Because, at that time, you don’t know if it was rape, or consensual, and you don’t know if the suspect has intent to commit the crime again, AND, the victim may not corroborate your story, leaving you flappin’ in the wind.

        There was a case long ago in CA of a man who came upon a rape in process, with the victim crying and pleading for help. The man shot and killed the rapist. The “victim” then tells police it was a game, an act of eroticism, and that her bruises were part of the act, and that the man was her boyfriend. Well, guess what, folks…the “hero” was tried for murder, found guilty of manslaughter, and went to jail.

        Firing your weapon at or near any person is an act that can have unknown, and very serious, consequences. It does not matter that you feel it was justified…the law will make the final determination.

    • Bill Smith July 14, 2017, 10:22 am

      The legal system being the money machine it has turned into is not the problem here it is the mental disposition of the judge, that is the problem. He must have feared a riot or maybe offending other neighborhood burglars.

  • Mike July 14, 2017, 8:14 am

    If you lose right for 2A I would suppose black powder would be okay? Does anyone know if that is factual?

    • Robert July 14, 2017, 9:00 am

      IF you are a felon you are not suppose to have contact with any thing that can be use to explode, shot, use to stab (includes a small pocket knife or box cutter). So to clear it up they can not have any Fire arm, Black powder, fire crackers, crossbows, bow and arrow, or any worn or pocket carried knife or box cutter. And if they stay in your home you are not allowed to have said items in your home while they are there to prevent them from having access to such items.

      • John July 14, 2017, 9:54 am

        That may be true for any local/state laws for ur area. That statement is incorrect for federal firearms laws. Black powder weapons are NOT considered firearms under US Treasury regulations. In Indiana they have decided not to prosecute any non-violent felon for possessing a firearm in their residence.

      • Lee Elliott July 14, 2017, 10:59 am

        I guess this brings it down to a \’Wrist Rocket\’ sling shot with ball bearings to be legal? Guy might as well move to Canada where criminals have all the rights and the innocent are automatically guilty. \”Thou shalt die to Appease the Liberals\”? Fuck that show!

    • Pete July 14, 2017, 9:06 am

      Black powder weapons are not classified as “firearms”. You can buy them without a background check, no 4473 required. This includes the Army, Navy or the Paterson cap and ball revolvers.

      You can even get away with a double-barreled muzzleloading shotgun.

      • Dr. Strangelove July 14, 2017, 10:48 am

        No, I bought a muzzle loader and I filled out a 4473. It’s considered a firearm.

        • WVinMN July 14, 2017, 12:04 pm

          No, you bought a very specific type of muzzle loader, likely a Remigtonarms Ultra Muzzle Loader. The VAST majority of black powder guns are NOT considered firearms requiring a form 4473.

    • Chris Mallory July 14, 2017, 9:10 am

      It might be OK for Federal law. State law will be different. I do know that Kentucky considers black powder firearms to be firearms. The legal definition of a firearm in Kentucky is “A device that expels a projectile using an explosion or chemical reaction.” or words to that effect. So, muzzle loaders are covered under that definition. Check your state law.

    • Richard A Risler July 14, 2017, 9:40 am

      In Wisconsin if it shoots a bullet with powder it is a firearm.

    • Kimberpross July 14, 2017, 9:47 am

      I have a friend that is a felon (Not willing to testify against a drug offense of a boyfriend) and I had to remove the firearms her new friend had in the home, which include the BB guns (Air guns). Not sure of the law on this, but the lawyer advised to remove them.

    • Norm Fishler July 14, 2017, 10:07 am

      As I understand it, since black powder firearms are not considered guns under the ’68 GCA, they are legal for a felon to possess. Different jurisdictions treat this differently so one had best have their ducks lined up precisely before testing this concept with their own life in the balance. Any of the various pro-gun groups should be able to help you figure this out but you had best be able to quote chapter, line & verse before testing the waters on this. YMMV

    • srsquidizen July 14, 2017, 11:06 am

      Depends on state law since they aren’t FFA. Some states may be bar felons from having ANY weapon that shoots a projectile with deadly force. Here in KS some years back a felon who owned a cap-&-ball revolver actually killed somebody with it (fortunately for law-abiding BP hobbyists this is very rare). He was sent up for murder but not illegal firearm possession.

      Pietta makes a replica Colt Walker 44 that would definitely work for a home defense weapon. It will take down a buffalo–the Walker remained one of the most powerful handguns on earth until advent of today’s big-bore magnum cartridges. But for chrissake wait ’til the buffalo gets inside your house or PETA will have you up on charges.

      • jim July 14, 2017, 1:14 pm

        He was not tried for possession of a firearm because the case for murder was absolute, and no judge will tack on extra penalties for a significant lesser crime. It does not mean the weapon was legal, as it was not. The legality of any weapon is not determined by it’s age or engineering, it is determined by how lethal it is Hammers, screwdrivers, and even rocks have all been found at some time to be lethal weapons.

        • srsquidizen July 14, 2017, 2:54 pm

          Maybe it works that way in your state but not KS. Here the DA will pile on every charge they can in a homicide case and the ones that stick can increase the paper sentence even if the perp is going to die in prison anyway. You seem confused about “lethal” vs. “illegal.” Yes a rock laying in a felon’s yard becomes a “lethal” weapon if he picks it up and bashes someone’s head in with it. But he cannot be charged with illegal possession of a rock. KS follows federal law in defining firearms that felons can’t own. Anything else is like the rock in their yard, except when a judge or parole board has specifically ordered them not to possess certain other weapons as a condition of release.

          That’s precisely why the felon I mentioned had a black powder handgun. He was also a druggie and if he got busted and they found the gun he wouldn’t be facing federal firearms charges coupled with drug charges. But being a born screw-up he did the only thing far worse.

  • Steve July 14, 2017, 8:03 am

    Hoping there is an appeal in the future somewhere. Something along the lines of commission of a crime. Once the ‘teens’, young adults at 18 and 19, decided to start a robbery they are subject to what ever befalls them. Too bad that guns are scary and we focus on the homeowner defending his own and OMG some little teen is shot. This would never had taken place had the three not made the decision to burglarize the homeowner. The burglar didn’t deserve to die? He shouldn’t have made the decision to put himself in a position where he might die. We know that it is not prudent to chase and shoot but who is to say that the three didn’t run off only to plan to come back with guns of their own … At some point we need the courts to stop playing social mommy and babysitter and stand up for the constitution.

  • Antonio July 14, 2017, 8:02 am

    …If I read the article correctly, the perpetrators or “PUNKS” were all of legal age making them “Adults”…but, the system made them out to be younger “innocent” teens….where are the Mom’s and Dad’s in this case?…were they hiding?….probably trying to protect themselves from their own children…..WOW!….what wonderful parents those kids(MEN) have.

  • Jarrett Lott July 14, 2017, 8:00 am

    Fkn bastard should not have been stealing and he wouldn’t be dead. The end.

    • Chuck July 14, 2017, 8:04 am

      The audacity of the deceased parents saying what they did about their POS son. A thief is a thief and as far as I am concerned they should all be shot when caught.

  • Jeffrey L. Frischkorn July 14, 2017, 7:57 am

    One of the rules stressed in my wife\’s and my concealed carry class is that once an imminent threat has been neutralized – including when a person has begun to flee – your right of claiming self-defense has likewise ended. It is not unlike shooting a would-be attacker, reloading with another magazine or cylinder and then standing over the body and firing again… Honestly, this is why my wife and I believe so strongly in the requirement to take a class in order to legally carry a concealed weapon. Call it the \”well regulated\” part of the Second Amendment if you wish. Boy, I know that\’s going to infuriate some readers here but it is an opinion. Disagree if you wish, but name-calling and shouting with a pen will not accomplish anything. Certainly it will not change our minds.

    • Steve July 14, 2017, 8:13 am

      You are correct. However, the basis for that discussion is one-half ethics and 100% law (you will be prosecuted if you chase and shoot.) You may 100% get arrested even if you do everything right. So, do everything right. The sad part is that we must make a mental STOP decision that is only there because of a post event likely prosecution. Shooting while the car is driving away not a good decision. What if the homeowner heard ‘son of a bitch he’s got a gun, let’s go get the AK’s and come back and fry this MF.’ Extreme yes but if you had a thought that these were the type to come back, do you not have the right to stop that threat in your driveway or street? There is no answer except to do everything right and the way you are taught, and take lessons beyond your first class so that your ability to assess any situation ensures that you walk away both at that time and, after you are arrested.

    • Steven Lambert July 14, 2017, 8:13 am

      You are spot on with your analysis. Once the threat has left your home…you are not the police and cannot pursue…even if they have some of your property in their possession.

      • John July 14, 2017, 10:08 am

        This varies greatly from state to state.in some states you have the right, no matter who u are, to stop a fleeing felon by any means necessary, including deadly force. The small amount of info in the acticle would make it very difficult to make an informed decision. However, in todays world I would be very hesitant to use deadly force, unless there was.clear danger of bodily harm. You can be right and still.be in serious trouble.

    • Wiscogunner July 14, 2017, 8:14 am

      Well said. The individuals were fleeing. Even if he shot the thief while he was in the house, he would be facing a very expensive civil suit. It is just the way our system works. If you are going to carry a weapon, take some extra private lessons that cover home defense situations, typical public situations and the out of the ordinary scenarios that, while rare, could happen and require additional consideration on how to react and respond. Since these thieves were no longer a threat, he should have reached for the phone.

      • Chris Mallory July 14, 2017, 9:12 am

        ” Even if he shot the thief while he was in the house, he would be facing a very expensive civil suit.”

        That will depend on state law. Many of the current castle doctrine laws prohibit civil suits by the “aggressor” or their family.

    • Lee July 14, 2017, 8:38 am

      The man said he did not consider him to be a threat. As soon as he said that he lost his right to say he was fearing for his life. Everyone that thinks this is wrong go to a concealed weapon class. Knowledge is power.

    • Tony Dolle July 14, 2017, 8:42 am

      Jeff Frischkorn is correct. My CC instructor drilled that into every student in the class I took. I have taken “refresher” courses (laws change and its the only way to stay abreast of the current laws in any state where you intend to carry concealed) and every instructor who teaches any part of those courses stressed that very same thing – once an imminent threat has been neutralized, your right to claim self-defense has ended. Granted, I wasn’t at the scene and did not see the events unfold, but even the most 2A supportive judges will enforce that aspect of the law whether we agree with the law (and the judges) or not.

    • RJ July 14, 2017, 8:57 am

      Laws vary from state to state. Florida has a castle law.
      If someone is in fear for their life. Stop the threat, call the police and shut up until you see a lawyer, no matter how much the police want you to talk or how justified you think you are.

  • Richard Harless July 14, 2017, 7:53 am

    The law of the land needs to be: If you come to steal you come to die… Pure and simple…

  • Police medic July 14, 2017, 7:53 am

    You can be very pro gun and still acknowledge that there are limits on what a true threat is, and when deadly force is needed. If the teens attacked at any point I would support deadly force, if he would have shot them while entering I would support deadly force, if they were in the house he told them to leave and they refused, I would support deadly force, if they were fleeing once he caught them inside the house I might even support it, if they fled the house and then turned around and advanced back toward the homeowner once they were outside I might even support it.
    However this scenario- would not have happened with a normal, responsible, well trained firearms owner. If the perps are fleeing and you chase them outside your home and you try to shoot out their tires you are not in fear for your life anymore, that’s the facts no matter how pro gun you are. Shooting out the tires? Seriously? This gun owner watches to many movies and needs remedial training. Sentence was fair. Police are people to, and they make mistakes just like normal people do- however-If a cop would have done this the liberal media would hang him out to dry, and we would be having trial for 2nd or even 1st degree murder. Guaranteed….
    Btw for those of you who don’t know police are overwhelmingly pro gun (see also the police one survey) never believe the liberal media, liberal politicians, or even the far right conspiracy theorists who want to paint a picture that it’s that police that want to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens, over 95% of law enforcement are very pro gun.

    • Ralph July 14, 2017, 8:16 am

      Well said, well said indeed.

    • John July 14, 2017, 8:37 am

      Well put and I for one stand with the men in blue and uniform

    • joe July 14, 2017, 9:29 am

      You forfeit your right to life, liberty, and property when you infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and property.

      Don’t confuse the legal with right, or illegal with wrong.

      It’s unfortunate he didn’t aim a camera instead of a gun, but shooting someone in the commission of a violent (breaking and entering) felony isn’t wrong.

      Apparently the judge even agrees, since he’s only getting 90 days.

  • John West July 14, 2017, 7:45 am

    Regardless of the circumstances I can’t help but compare this situation to the several police shootings of unarmed suspects being shot as many as 16 times. In several instances these citizens were running from a traffic stop and shot multiple times after they were incapacitated after being struck by the first round. As far as I know, they have never spent a day in jail because “they were afraid for their lives”. Evidently this standard only applies to trained law enforcement. It seems a bit like “get a badge and shoot who you want”.

  • Daniel Smyth July 14, 2017, 7:36 am

    Sir, may I please have the definition of infringed. And now please remind us what it means when the constitution demands that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms shal NOT be infringed.

    I just looked again. No place in the amendment that provides for a reason that the 2nd amendment can be removed.
    Sir, please state the definition of permission or permissions. This definition is not equal to the definition of a RIGHT!

    This is the argument that needs to be pushed!

    Our constitution IS the law of the land, or it is not? What constitution do our government officials pledge to support?

    • captain July 14, 2017, 8:06 am

      Exactly what I came here to say. The United States of America of today is a travesty. 🙁
      If a person is not IN A JAIL after a legitimate conviction of a HEINOUS crime against another actual victim, then ALL of his civil rights should be respected by society and the government. But we have allowed a PRISON INDUSTRY to grow up alongside a militarized police force, and we seem to enjoy living in a pretend state of “war”. I suspect the endgame goal is to have EVERYONE labeled a “felon” so no one can exercise his “Second Amendment rights” without subsequently “losing” them.

    • Jim McCoy July 14, 2017, 8:15 am

      I have to agree with you this, I have read the constitution carefully and find nothing that authorizes the removal of a citizens rights. Conversely, I think that certain people shouldn’t be allowed to own a weapon but then I think there are a lot of people that shouldn’t be allow to breed also so it’s a catch 22 situation.

  • Vinuzzo July 14, 2017, 7:34 am

    This guy watches too much TV. You don’t shoot at a fleeing car and you don’t shoot out it’s tires like the Lone Ranger. You get the license plate and call 911. The judge is right. This guy is stupid. Not only is he stupid, he’s a product of the television environment. Now on the other hand, the world would be a better place if facilitating mamas like the one in this story would have put her foot up the kid’s ass when he needed it. Then he wouldn’t have been there in the first place. Is the world really that much worse off with one less burglarizing thug in it? I don’t think so. We’ll get along just fine without this criminal mastermind. The Dr. Moriarty of Minnesota. What a putz. Got himself killed for shits and giggles.

  • Steve July 14, 2017, 7:18 am

    People should read the article written by judge Hayes. It can be found at armedcitizensnetwork.org
    This person shot at fleeing vehicle. Perfect example why responsible gun owners are the target of poor legislation and misguided public opinion. The judge in this case got it right!

  • Nick July 14, 2017, 7:04 am

    The last thing I would ever do is shoot at a fleeing suspect. In this poor guy’s case I think telling people you are trying to “shoot out a tire” is like when people think cops should shoot to wound. You shoot to stop a threat. If someone is running away, they ain’t a threat no more.

  • Dr.X July 14, 2017, 7:02 am

    Hello!!!! It’s Minnesota… mostly Muslim terrorists there these days… doesn’t matter if he was white or black… Muslims hate all Americans…they want to disarm us and this episode will put doubt in any Gun owners head to use our second amendment rights…and as long as these liberal judges keep convicting us for defending ourselves, they are slowly accomplishing their goals!!!

  • Carbine Williams July 14, 2017, 7:01 am

    A State Police friend always counseled me to be sure the perp was inside your house or garage before you pulled the trigger

  • JGinNJ July 14, 2017, 6:34 am

    1) I am not trained nor do I have any experience to deal with the situation this man found himself in. Okay, he was supposedly no longer in danger when he shot at a fleeing car. But would a normal person really have the discipline required to recognize that the danger had passed? One has to be careful about this because anti-gunners would try to use such a comment to support their ideas that normal people cannot be trusted with deadly weapons. Still, some understanding should have resulted in an outcome that was less harsh.
    2) I hate the plea bargaining. We have an event and three stories of what happened – the shooter and the two surviving boys, Was a plea bargain really needed to sort out whose story was more truthful? Doesn’t the plea bargain taint the case, as the individual who makes it says what he thinks the prosecution wants to hear?

  • Resolute July 14, 2017, 6:25 am

    Only one thought: where was the NRA, the USCCA, and any other 2A group? Might it be that now that they are a “commercial insurance group”, if you don’t have their coverage, you won’t get their protection as before? Who is this judge “Roy Bean” who obviously is a social leftist who is allowed to defame the bench?

  • Lloyd Dumas July 14, 2017, 5:51 am

    Two crimes we’re committed here unfortunately a kid lost his life. Poor judgement in both cases I am deeply sorry for both party’s I can just imagine how the home owner felt and I might have acted the same as he did. In a situation like this none of us know until it happens to us, I have lots of respect for our justice system and it must be adhered to although at times it seem so unfair, sometimes the good guys get caught up in her net. Happy to hear he was not sentenced to the max.

    • Jim McCoy July 14, 2017, 8:19 am

      Well it’s far from over since there will almost certainly be a civil suit and this poor guy that was defending his property from thieves will end up losing it all to the thieves family

  • Darryl July 14, 2017, 5:28 am

    and just as always the crooks mom says he was a good kids and didn’t deserve to be killed. BS lady if you’re so upset about this maybe you should have done a better job of raising him where he wouldn’t turn out to be a crook and you wouldn’t have see him dead. feel for the homeowner and not any of these crooks.

  • Jimmy July 14, 2017, 5:22 am

    That man should of NEVER ever accepted that B.S. deal. Those punk scum, most likely blacks with typical, long rap-sheets are trying to terrorize this man, in his home which he worked his entire life for and they finally got their card punched, waaaah, waaaah, those poor “kids” – GIVE ME A BREAK! Too bad he didn’t kill all 3 of the scum. And now you can bet the home owner will also be sued civilly. And the true victim in this situation can no longer have any guns ever again – that is garbage!!
    The true victim was scared and those 3 punks were the ones breaking the law!!

    • Lord July 14, 2017, 8:03 am

      It\’s funny when a 16 or 17 year old gets lucky and gets to bang a 30 year old divorcee they are children and need to be protected. But when the same teenager kills somebody all the sudden, hell yeah try them as adults. Florida is famous for this.
      these guys were adults and the News keeps calling them little boys. I flipping hate The Duality of this BS. As far as the guy shooting a fleeing car too bad he wasn\’t in Texas.

  • roger July 14, 2017, 5:02 am

    Home owner was white. Enough said.

    • Dale Martin July 14, 2017, 5:37 am

      I’m sorry the mother of this thug lost her son and she wants a man who was woke up in the middle of the night with a young adult (lets not forget they are adults at 18) trying to enter his home. I guess he should’ve invited them in for cookies and milk and then he could inquire if they meant him any harm. You act as a thug you get treated as a thug. Who knows if they get away with nothing happening to this YOUNG ADULT MAN he may have broken into a different home the next night or even later that evening with him killing some innocent American citizen.

    • john July 14, 2017, 7:30 am

      `what?!…you R a knucklehead….

      • Scott Hateslibs July 14, 2017, 11:04 am

        No, he is not a knucklehead, he is a rational person who makes a rational argument. Once a thug, always a thug. I agree completely – by taking out this miscreant, he very well may have save someone’s life. At bare minimum, the theft rate is bound to have dropped in the area – bad thing? Nope. And a lawless punk is gone. Celebrate! Hope his attorney finds a way to have his conviction overturned on appeal!

  • Jay July 14, 2017, 4:55 am

    Well it may be true none of us were there. Fact, Ayers Jr. 19 made a plea deal and admitted they were there to burglarize this man’s home! A felony conspiracy to commit burglary, a felony attempted burglary charge would normally ensue for all involved! The home owner grabs a gun and was investigating, while standing in his drive way they attempt to run him down he steps out of the way and fires, hummm you can call it what you will but that’s attempted vehicular manslaughter, also a felony! Something is amiss here I think but when’s the last time we the public got unbiased and truthful news?!

    • Rattlerjake July 14, 2017, 5:34 am

      I question why he took a plea deal!

    • Eric July 14, 2017, 6:09 am

      I hope this case is appealed. The homeowner definitely got a raw deal and his scumbag buddies ought to be glad they didn’t get their dumb asses shot as well. A plea bargain was bad deal!

      • Chris Mallory July 14, 2017, 9:17 am

        If you take a plea, there is usually no appeal allowed.

  • Mark July 14, 2017, 4:18 am

    1. According to the above, he shot at a fleeing car…at that point, he no longer had a reason to fear for his life.
    2. He proves the above when he says he was attempting to shoot out the tires. If you’re in fear for your life, you use deadly force to stop someone from being a threat to you…you don’t shoot at their tires in an attempt to stop them from getting away from you.
    3. Were the folks he shot at bad guys? Of course! They were criminals who intended to steal from him! If he had shot at them while they were inside or entering his house, or while they were attacking him, it’d be a totally different story! Instead, he shot at them when they were running away and no longer presented a threat to him.

    This was *not* a self-defense shooting, and he’s damn lucky he got off with as little as he did.

    • Jeff July 14, 2017, 6:22 am


    • Michael Poletti July 14, 2017, 6:35 am

      Unfortunately but absolutely correct when the treat is gone or going away you have no right to shoot

    • Chris July 14, 2017, 7:28 am

      You’re right on most points except the part where they were no longer a threat.
      Plenty of anecdotal evidence will show after an unsuccessful attempt at burglary these dirt bags would have returned.
      Many have been broken in more than once by the same perpetrators.
      These guys were felons. Age doesn’t come into play. 18+, commission of felony burglary with intent to run a man down, hmm.
      Yeah, future threat fer sure.
      I’m merely pointing out a fact that is rarely if ever mentioned in a case like this.
      As Steven King famously said, ‘Sometimes they come back.’

      • Everett July 14, 2017, 7:36 am

        Yes they may return. Now because he broke the law, the other two could return and he will be without his .45. Maybe better to let them go and file a police report?

      • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 28, 2018, 10:51 am

        That’s right! And this corrupted state’s attorney with his high pressure plea deal to get himself credited with an easy felony conviction along with his golfing butt bud, the judge, just put this victim’s life at risk because of the unconstitutional law of ex-cons permanently prohibited from possessing a gun to protect themselves, even when back in society as a law abiding citizen again. It’s fucking Insane and another proof why we need to reverse and repeal the entire ’68 gun control act, before the bodies of the slaves start piling up at the bottom of the super slippery slope.

    • Everett July 14, 2017, 7:28 am

      You are spot on. We must follow the law even as others do not.

  • bill July 14, 2017, 4:05 am

    You never know what the future holds or what ppl are thinking. The guys might of came back and tried to finish the job. It might not of been an attempted break-in rather the Perps carrying out a contract killing on his life. Too bad he now has a felony on his record for killing someone that attempted to break in his house. When will ppl learn that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. ……never, that’s when. So, they will continue to pay the price. When someone tries to break into the one safe place, or is supposed to be anyway, that your wife and children can relax and rest in peace, they sometimes have to pay the ultimate price. They’re not too smart to begin with, because getting a job instead of trying to take what someone else has worked their butt of for, not to mention more likely than not, do harm to your family just for the hell of it. Well, sometimes they get what they deserve….Justice.

  • Trevor_Phillips July 14, 2017, 3:45 am

    I would’ve chased them down and run them off the road.

  • Angel July 14, 2017, 3:31 am

    its too bad someone was killed during poor judgement by both parties who lnows those kids may have decided to kill that man to ll eave no witness the other boys should have been charged with murder during the commission of a felony Isn’t that the law and all they recieved was a slapon the wrist

    • Resolute July 14, 2017, 6:31 am

      Maybe the parents of the dead thug should be charged with “accessory to murder” in the death of their son. Oh yeah, I forgot child neglect and STUPID.

    • Mike July 14, 2017, 6:31 am

      In Minnesota, the same state that elected Al Franken to the senate?

  • Mike h July 13, 2017, 3:29 pm

    There is no justice in the justice system. I was not there, so my opinion is based on media reports.

    This is an unjust verdict.
    Laws aside…
    The military has guns.
    Police have guns.
    Permit holders have guns.
    Home owners have guns.
    Various persons according to various laws legally have guns.
    People that legally cannot possess firearms have guns.
    So if you are willing to do a crime against someone, armed or not, you are a dangerous person.
    Like the person riding a motorcycle without a helmet you accept the risk of death.

    Police here in Houston recently shot and killed someone leaving a crime scene and it was ok because ” he tried to run us down ” ( the video didn’t show that in my opinion).

    Justice was not served.

    Also a mother lost her son. Nothing will be right for her no matter her sons actions.

  • John R Pyles 111 July 12, 2017, 7:29 pm

    The plea deal was bullshit the dead scum had probably done this before and deserves what happened to him, this man did a service. the judge and prosecutor are ass-hats and don’t get me started on the sperm and egg donors. USELESS low life’s.

    • Rattlerjake July 14, 2017, 5:37 am


  • Paul July 12, 2017, 5:38 pm

    No he did not use bad judgment. I have read many stories of kids killing people. The fait of those kids was in there own hands.

    • Rattlerjake July 14, 2017, 5:38 am

      “fait”??????? “FATE”!!!!!!!!!!

  • Bill Warlop July 12, 2017, 2:05 pm

    Am I Missing Something???? Why are the two other accomplices only slapped on the wrists? Granted , it was poor judgment to shot at a retreating vehicle but none of this takes place if they were not breaking the law.
    If you run with (social) cripples you’re going to limp. Maybe even get killed. I AM APPAULED !!!

    • bill July 14, 2017, 4:09 am

      Bill Warlop, I know where I’m from, if anyone that is involved in a crime and someone gets killed, they prosecute the accomplices with the murder charge. Guess they figured it would be easier to blame it on the homeowner. Hope they repeal and win. If the MAN, not kid, that got killed was of color, you can bet this crap isn’t over with.

      • william massi jr July 14, 2017, 6:53 am

        Y. Y. Y. Are The Outher NOT GOING TO JAIL. ????????????????? The Little SHIT HEADS, Nead to Spend Some Time , Behind Bars. YES. And MOM And DAD. IF There Are Any. Thay, Are The Ones That Should Have Gotton Some Time. For Bringing Up There KID;S Like This To Go ROB Some One , Anyone. The LITTLE BASTERS. ????????? I HOPE THIS GUY APEAIL THIS AND WINS. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE GOTTON ANY TIME> GOOD LUCK TO HIM.

    • Rattlerjake July 14, 2017, 5:41 am


    • Resolute July 14, 2017, 6:34 am

      They can only be charged with murder if they used a weapon [the car?] in commission of a felony.

Send this to a friend