The prosecutor on what was right versus what was lawful:
“Under Montana law, he did have the right to arm himself and, yes, under Montana law he had the right to stand in that doorway and confront Dan as Dan entered the garage without invitation.”
Corrigan explained that, despite the legality of Harper’s actions, he did not believe they were the right actions.
“Although you may not know from some of the blogs, I think most reasonable people would believe that the choice between taking someone’s life or causing grievous harm and taking the opportunity to retreat into your house safely and close the door and call police, that that’s probably the reasonable thing to do, at least that is my opinion,” Corrigan said.
He went on to say that despite his opinion, Montana law does not require a person to take that action in his or her own home.
“That’s the unfortunate thing about this whole situation,” he said. “Cooler heads and a little more thought into the consequences of one’s actions and this whole tragedy could have been avoided.”
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_3723d23c-1336-11e2-80eb-0019bb2963f4.html
“Brice Harper, shooter, stated publicly several times that he had a gun, wasn’t afraid of Dan, and once even said he ‘would blow Dan’s head off’. When he and Heather were going around the block and knew Dan was following them Brice had TIME to decide what he was going to do. In a self defense situation the confrontation happens and you have to decide. Brice was driving around processing what he was going to do. So he DECIDED on murder. He didn’t decide to lock his house and call 911. He didn’t decide to keep driving and call 911. He didn’t decide to drive to the cops and get help. He DECIDED he was going to get out of the car, get a 40 caliber revolver and MURDER Danny. If THAT is self defense, we should all be terrified.
http://www.facebook.com/JusticeForDanFredenberg
The problem is, everything posted there is conjecture. You weren’t there, I wasn’t there. Did he have the ability to retreat? Did he have the time to retreat and close the door? Was his assailant between him and any possible retreat? This is why retreat laws are BS and ill thought out.
In a nutshell, guy comes on to his property to violently settle a grievance. Guy gets shot and killed for his trouble. His mistake was going on to the other guys property to deal with the issue... violently.
If someone comes on my property with intent to do harm, I’m not retreating. I have no legal obligation to do so. Duty to retreat has the very high potential of putting others at harm. What if someone comes on my property to commit a violent act. I retreat in the house, said person follows me. Now, my wife and daughter may be home and in direct danger because I retreated because some idiot busy body law maker decided he knows best how I should live my life than I do. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I’m eliminating the threat immediately and keeping my family safe.
Stand you ground laws are being put in place around the nation because of examples like I just typed above. Those scenarios have happened and will happen.