Skip to comments.Kalispell shooting victim's family shocked by 'castle doctrine'(MT)
Posted on 10/11/2012 4:02:37 AM PDT by marktwain
KALISPELL Family members of a Kalispell man who was shot and killed during a confrontation on another mans property are reacting with shock and anger to news that the shooter is protected under Montanas castle doctrine laws, while prosecutors in the state say theyve become increasingly hamstrung by a piece of 2009 legislation that makes it more difficult to charge cases in which self-defense issues are raised.
The Sept. 22 shooting death of 40-year-old Dan Fredenberg occurred inside the garage of Brice Harper, who had reportedly drawn Fredenbergs ire after becoming romantically involved with the mans wife. On the night of the shooting, Harper, 24, was standing in the threshold to his home when an unarmed Fredenberg entered the garage and advanced toward him, according to the police investigation. Harper fatally shot Fredenberg three times, and told police he feared for his life.
In Fredenbergs case, Corrigan said there is not enough evidence to prove the shooter did not have cause to feel threatened. The shooting took place inside the shooters house, Corrigan said, and Fredenberg allegedly wouldnt stop advancing on the other man.
Investigators say Fredenberg was standing and facing the other man when he was shot, and the shooter told police once they arrived: I told him I had a gun, but he just kept coming at me.
Marbut says the previous version of the law required a person to retreat and call on law enforcement for assistance before use of force was considered justified.
(Excerpt) Read more at http: ...
Since when does “unarmed” mean “not at all dangerous in any way whatsoever”?
Unwise actions by the late Mr. Fredenburg.
Killed the guy three times???
It looks like he was looking for a fight, and got one.
“while prosecutors in the state say theyve become increasingly hamstrung by a piece of 2009 legislation that makes it more difficult to charge cases in which self-defense issues are raised....”
So how many prosecutors say that? Two? One?
Pet store owners say that they’ve seen Tristan Scott buying flea soap; therefore, she sleeps with dogs.
How do we know he is telling the truth?
The link did not work.
Exactly. If you keep advancing on someone who has warned you they feel threatened and are armed... What do you expect? Only an idiot (or a liberal) would let that person walk up on them, hoping that their good human nature would prevail and protect them... To me, this sounds like suicide by (armed) neighbor.
How do we know he is not telling the truth ?
That castle doctrine works both ways.
My initial reaction was, chain the b***ch
to the front porch and see if mr romantically
involved comes to visit/help.
Sometimes initial reactions are just that.
“Since when does unarmed mean not at all dangerous in any way whatsoever?”
Almost any man coming at me in an agressive manner would be a danger to me because of the disparity in size and physical strength.
Gun = great equalizer.
Did he fear for his life or was he eliminating her husband.???
Harper fatally shot Fredenberg three times.
That answers my question.
He should have been indicted. No Castle Doctrine for him.
Then again, all we have is Mr Harper's word that things happened the way he said they did. Mr Fredenberg was a fool for confronting Mr Harper where he did. He was a double fool for blaming Harper for his wife's behavior.
We also have the body of the man in the other man’s house. Where he had no reason to be.
There is the possibility that the shooter discovered the affair, lured the guy to the property and then shot an unarmed man as part of a premeditated plot to eliminate his rival.
If law enforcement cannot demonstrate that such a setup took place, it will be very hard to charge him and castle doctrine applies.
If the wife invited the man to her home, then it should not apply. He was a guest, no matter how unwelcome he was to one resident.
We presume innocence around here. We don't arrest and ask questions later. The police, no doubt, will investigate. And if the story does not check out then they can arrest the man. But if not you can't just assume he lied, with no evidence.
And by the way once you have a gun and a man who knows you have slept with his wife, you have a very dangerous situation and you can assume your health or life is in jeopardy.
do I understand from what little I can get of this poorly written article that the adulterer murdered the husband of the woman he was fornicating with? So, this needs to be a murder investigation.
Surely, these two depraved individuals set this up. Oh, I’ll have H come over to “talk this out.” Then I will say he threatened me in my castle shoot him and claim the Castle doctrine. Then his wife and I will live happily ever after with all his money. uh huh. great.
The husband was killed going to his rivals home after he found out about the affair, not the other way around.
Wrong target Fur Shur.
Well, the entire point of the castle doctrine laws is just that, to make it more difficult to charge and convict a person who has acted in self defense. Especially in the home, against a person who does not reside in that home.
Fraud is also an angle here ~ take the wife, invite the guy over, shoot him in the garage three times (must have really been advancing ~ 3 shots?) ~ let's see what happens later on ~ this could be one smarmy mess yet.
Situations like this cry out for the use of water-boarding on somebody. We really need the truth.
I disagree. While I don’t condone his actions with the mans wife, the husband sought him out in his own garage on his property. Had it been where the husband caught him red handed so to speak, yes.
The husband handled this poorly and paid for it with his life. He came to the fight, the fight did not go to him.
The left would REALLY like to advance that narrative in order to justify their lie that "if no one but the police had guns, no violence would occur".
this paradigm usually only works with felines....
My 102 year old grandma says it is always the womans fault, because a woman can always run faster with her dress up than a man can with his pants down.
A Grand Jury should make that call.
Presumed innocence, right to defend yourself, right to shoot before calling the police who may not come for 20 minutes. It all seems reasonable to me.
If it were up to the gun grabbers the law would require the shooter (defender) to have been beaten severely and on the verge of dying before he could shoot an unarmed man.
Only then, could it be proven that his life was at stake and to shoot was finally “earned.”
How do we know he isn't?
Prosecutors only want cops to be able to murder peasants in cold blood.
The Castle Doctrine does not exist so that you can kill someone who is confronting you verbally.
You are on my property. I tell you to leave, you keep coming...
You are done for.
As it should be.
“Killed the guy three times??? “
He should have left after he got killed the first time.
I hope that you face the same reality as the shooter does sometime in the very near future.
As a matter of fact, I wish for someone to come over to beat the crap out of you since I have a warm fuzzy feeling that no matter what, you would not shoot to protect yourself due to the heavy thinking and contemplating required while being beat to death in whether this is truly a beating that may maim or kill you.
Hell! You just might ask him how badly he wants to beat you to or which bones he will be breaking.
Just then, maybe you might have just enough common sense to pull the trigger.....on second thought, with you....no!
Sounds like a good shoot from the description
Damn! Beat me to it.
“Michele Keiffer, Fredenbergs mother-in-law, is incensed by the recent developments in the case, and has started a petition to change the law. She is trying to gather support on a Facebook page called Justice for Dan Fredenberg, and has posted the petition on the website www.change.org.”
Wouldn't his mother-in-law be the adulterous wife's mother?
Talk amongst yourselves.
You are making stuff up now.
It depends. Ordinary consanguinity or North Georgia consanguinity?
(My apologies to North Georgia)
What question was answered for you? Why do you think someone attacked in their own residence can’t defend themselves legally?
Ah, thank you. Then the notion that he kept advancing is much more believable.
Please never sit on a jury.
Please never sit on a jury.
Did he have a phone in the house to call 911 to report the situation and the time to do it??? If so then just how fearful was he really??? Why did he choose the gun instead of the phone???
Was it daytime???
Just because you say you are afraid for your life doesn't mean you are???
Was he afraid after the first shot??? How about the second shot??? Still afraid???