Friday, October 12, 2012

The Problem with the Castle Doctrine in Montana

Dan Fredenberg



 Local news reports

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.
Isn't it too easy for a defensive shooter to claim he felt threatened? What the hell esle is he going to say with a dead guy laying there?

Isn't it likely that a guy who's sleeping with another man's wife going to be a bit jumpy and paranoid and guilty when the other man comes calling?  Wouldn't he be expecting trouble and perhaps see threat where none exists?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. I don’t have much sympathy for this kind of whining:

    “It does make life more difficult for the prosecutors,” said Leo Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney and president of the MCAA.

    Do you mean it is hard to convict someone of murder? You poor, poor prosecutor.

    “Basically, if self-defense is raised, it shifts the burden to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was not justified.”

    Do you mean just like in every other murder case where you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is a murder? Aw, why can’t the poor guy catch a break and make the accused have prove their innocence?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Okay let's look at this for a moment. Harper is in an adulterous relationship with Fredenberg's wife. Fredenberg,who obviously takes exception to another man having sex with his wife, shows up to Harper's home, trespasses, and approaches Harper.

    I think it's safe to assume that the husband didn't show up to give the adulterer advice. The husband was there to confront the man -- probably violently -- and I think any reasonable person would have been in fear of great bodily harm.

    Once again there is a simple choice if you don't like the Castle Doctrine -- STAY OUT OF STRANGERS' HOMES!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Once again there is a simple choice if you don't like the Castle Doctrine -- STAY OUT OF STRANGERS' HOMES!!!"

      but that's so hard to do. Every time I get in my car, it just forces me to drive to a stranger's house and confront the homeowner. Luckily I don't carry a gun with me, otherwise it might make me start shooting people, too.

      Delete
    2. You guys are making a lot of assumptions.

      He could have gone to this guy's house to tell him he was welcome to his wife, that he no longer wanted her because she was unfaithful.

      It is not necessarily trespass; one of the things I would expect the police to look at is if there were any prior communications between the shooter and the victim.

      It is as logical to assume that the shooter got rid of the husband in his way by shooting him, possibly luring him over, as any other explanation.

      If you don't want to find yourself confronted by an angry husband, keep your penis in your own pants, and stay away from married women.

      This just shows the failure of our gun culture all over again, and the problems with our castle doctrine laws -- it leads to more, not less shooting.

      Without too easy access to firearms, other alternatives would have had to be tried -- like going into the house and locking the door, and calling police.

      Or -- here's one that the gun lunatics keep forgetting, because they lose their brains when a gun is available -- TALKING.

      The only person who appears to have been consistently in the wrong is the guy who did the shooting...and the gun culture....and the gun laws. ALL of those were wrong.

      Delete
    3. Dog Gone, you accuse us of seeing everything in one narrow way, but you do exactly that. Any time there's a shooting, you yammer on about how it's the fault of being male, of gun culture, of the NRA, and so forth without looking at the event in detail to see if the shooting were justified.

      Delete
    4. Speaking of making assumptions.
      dog gone said..."He could have gone to this guy's house to tell him he was welcome to his wife, that he no longer wanted her because she was unfaithful."

      His wife was with him, why not just put her out of the car and leave her?

      and according to the wife "[They] had a 'difficult marriage,' in which they were physically and verbally abusive toward one another"

      and.. the couple’s fights were often precipitated by Fredenberg’s drinking, and an autopsy revealed that Fredenberg had a blood alcohol level of 0.08 when he died.

      Yep, sounds like he just wanted to go have a chit chat. Maybe Ms. Fredenberg should be charged.

      Then dog gone said..."The only person who appears to have been consistently in the wrong is the guy who did the shooting..."

      Yeah, because the cheating spouse had nothing to do with it at all, she was just an innocent party, lured in by a presumably younger man.

      Delete
  3. 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. https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForDanFredenberg

    ReplyDelete