Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kalispell shooting victim's family shocked by 'castle doctrine'(MT)
ravallirepublic.com ^ | 10 October, 2012 | Tristan Scott

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 man’s property are reacting with shock and anger to news that the shooter is protected under Montana’s “castle doctrine” laws, while prosecutors in the state say they’ve 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 Fredenberg’s ire after becoming romantically involved with the man’s 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.

------------------------cut-----------------------

In Fredenberg’s 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 shooter’s house, Corrigan said, and Fredenberg allegedly wouldn’t 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: ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: banglist; briceharper; fredenberg; mt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
Domestic situations are nasty, but to keep advancing on a man in his home when he has told you that he has a gun cannot be blamed on being under the influence.
1 posted on 10/11/2012 4:02:46 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Since when does “unarmed” mean “not at all dangerous in any way whatsoever”?


2 posted on 10/11/2012 4:06:37 AM PDT by Flintlock (-THE TRUTH--It's the NEW hate speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Unwise actions by the late Mr. Fredenburg.


3 posted on 10/11/2012 4:10:05 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Una bruja.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Harper fatally shot Fredenberg three times

Killed the guy three times???

4 posted on 10/11/2012 4:10:58 AM PDT by laker_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It looks like he was looking for a fight, and got one.


5 posted on 10/11/2012 4:12:10 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“while prosecutors in the state say they’ve 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.


6 posted on 10/11/2012 4:13:12 AM PDT by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I have all ways told people it is real stupid to tell some one that is armed. You are going to hurt or kill them.
7 posted on 10/11/2012 4:13:27 AM PDT by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

How do we know he is telling the truth?

The link did not work.


8 posted on 10/11/2012 4:13:33 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock

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.


9 posted on 10/11/2012 4:14:02 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sakic

How do we know he is not telling the truth ?


10 posted on 10/11/2012 4:15:59 AM PDT by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


11 posted on 10/11/2012 4:19:37 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock

“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.


12 posted on 10/11/2012 4:21:30 AM PDT by Holly_P
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The Sept. 22 shooting death of 40-year-old Dan Fredenberg occurred inside the garage of Brice Harper, who had reportedly drawn Fredenberg’s ire after becoming romantically involved with the man’s wife.

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.

13 posted on 10/11/2012 4:21:30 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Domestic situations are nasty, but to keep advancing on a man in his home when he has told you that he has a gun cannot be blamed on being under the influence.

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.

14 posted on 10/11/2012 4:26:07 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Charlie Daniels - Payback Time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWwTJj_nosI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"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."

Good enough. Castle doctrine (as usual) has nothing to do with it. "Romantic" entanglements with another man's wife generally lead to murder and mayhem. I have no doubt he feared for his life when the offended husband darkened his doorway.
15 posted on 10/11/2012 4:29:00 AM PDT by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

We also have the body of the man in the other man’s house. Where he had no reason to be.


16 posted on 10/11/2012 4:31:17 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It is one man's word involved here, and whatever forensic evidence that can be gathered.

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.

17 posted on 10/11/2012 4:34:05 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Its possible that the man did not tell the truth. But you can't just guess he lied. Even if he slept with the other mans wife and would be better off with that man out of the way, that is still not going to answer the question of whether or not he lied.

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.

18 posted on 10/11/2012 4:52:29 AM PDT by poinq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


19 posted on 10/11/2012 4:54:11 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"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."

The husband was killed going to his rivals home after he found out about the affair, not the other way around.

20 posted on 10/11/2012 4:55:09 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Link to story



21 posted on 10/11/2012 4:58:24 AM PDT by preacher (Communism has only killed 100 million people: Let's give it another chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Wrong target Fur Shur.


22 posted on 10/11/2012 5:00:24 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

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.


23 posted on 10/11/2012 5:01:46 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: poinq
Taking advantage of the Castle Doctrine means you give up a trial (provided it's just prosecutorial discretion we're talking about), so if other evidence is discovered downstream, you can still be tried.

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.

24 posted on 10/11/2012 5:04:02 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

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.


25 posted on 10/11/2012 5:05:37 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock
Since when does “unarmed” mean “not at all dangerous in any way whatsoever”?

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".

26 posted on 10/11/2012 5:08:29 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laker_dad
Harper fatally shot Fredenberg three times
Killed the guy three times???

this paradigm usually only works with felines....

27 posted on 10/11/2012 5:14:55 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

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.


28 posted on 10/11/2012 5:20:54 AM PDT by bdfromlv (Leavenworth hard time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

A Grand Jury should make that call.


29 posted on 10/11/2012 5:29:53 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I don't believe you are giving up the trial. You just have to have more than a shooting to go to trial. Shooting in itself is not grounds for an arrest or trial.

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.

30 posted on 10/11/2012 5:34:10 AM PDT by poinq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Wrong. The husband was trespassing with intent to at least confront the other man. The husband initiated the attack.

Game over.

31 posted on 10/11/2012 5:44:36 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.”


32 posted on 10/11/2012 5:48:19 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sakic
How do we know he is telling the truth?

How do we know he isn't?

33 posted on 10/11/2012 5:48:51 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (That was sarcasm, you moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
“while prosecutors in the state say they’ve become increasingly hamstrung by a piece of 2009 legislation that makes it more difficult to charge cases in which self-defense issues are raised....”

Prosecutors only want cops to be able to murder peasants in cold blood.

34 posted on 10/11/2012 5:50:54 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The husband was trespassing with intent to at least confront the other man.

The Castle Doctrine does not exist so that you can kill someone who is confronting you verbally.

35 posted on 10/11/2012 5:53:12 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

You are on my property. I tell you to leave, you keep coming...

You are done for.

As it should be.


36 posted on 10/11/2012 5:56:28 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: laker_dad

“Killed the guy three times??? “

He should have left after he got killed the first time.


37 posted on 10/11/2012 5:57:32 AM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

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!


38 posted on 10/11/2012 5:57:40 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sounds like a good shoot from the description


39 posted on 10/11/2012 6:00:49 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laker_dad

Damn! Beat me to it.


40 posted on 10/11/2012 6:02:28 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrB
From the article:

“Michele Keiffer, Fredenberg’s 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?

41 posted on 10/11/2012 6:04:20 AM PDT by Eagle Bomba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The late and cuckholded Mr. Fredenberg's autopsy showed a blood alcohol level of 0.08. For the purposes of driving, that's drunk under the laws of all 50 states.

Talk amongst yourselves.

42 posted on 10/11/2012 6:08:50 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

You are making stuff up now.


43 posted on 10/11/2012 6:14:35 AM PDT by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Bomba
Wouldn't his mother-in-law be the adulterous wife's mother?

It depends. Ordinary consanguinity or North Georgia consanguinity?

(My apologies to North Georgia)

44 posted on 10/11/2012 6:18:21 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

What question was answered for you? Why do you think someone attacked in their own residence can’t defend themselves legally?


45 posted on 10/11/2012 6:18:25 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Ah, thank you. Then the notion that he kept advancing is much more believable.


46 posted on 10/11/2012 6:18:27 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Double Tap
You are making stuff up now.

It's not the first time.

47 posted on 10/11/2012 6:24:13 AM PDT by Tuanedge (Warriors victorious in a hundred battles, flee when a tiger enters their tent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Please never sit on a jury.


48 posted on 10/11/2012 6:27:45 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Please never sit on a jury.


49 posted on 10/11/2012 6:27:57 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Durus
There are some questions that I would like to know, like where was the gun??? Did he go from the garage into the house to get it??? Was there a door between the garage and the house that could be closed??? If so -- then just how fearful was he really???

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???

50 posted on 10/11/2012 6:29:03 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson