Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Montana's Castle Doctrine and the Case of Brice Harper
Reason Foundation ^ | 24 October, 2012 | NA

Posted on 10/24/2012 6:33:28 PM PDT by marktwain

By Reason Foundation, Wed, October 24, 2012

Critics of "castle doctrine" laws are blaming Montana's for the decision not to prosecute Brice Harper, who shot and killed Dan Fredenberg last month during a confrontation over Harper's affair with Fredenberg's wife. But as with the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, it is not clear why the legal provisions cited by the law's detractors are relevant. According to Harper, an enraged (but unarmed) Fredenburg charged into the garage at Harper's home in Kalispell on the night of September 22 "like he was on a mission." In an October 9 letter explaining why he decided not to prosecute Harper, Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan mentions some details that were tellingly omitted from the New York Times account, which presents the case as an illustration of the dangers posed by strong self-defense laws:

While being escorted from the scene of the shooting by [Kalipsell Police Department] Officer Jason Parce, Brice stated: "I told him I had a gun, but he just kept coming at me." Heather [Fredenberg's wife, who witnessed the confrontation] stated to Officer Parce: "Brice shot him...he (Brice) told him he had a gun, but he just kept coming at him." A neighbor also reported to Det. Scott Warnell that she overheard Brice repeatedly state “he was coming at me."...

Heather observed Dan enter the garage and approach Brice as he was standing in the doorway to his residence, "walking up to him fast, cussing at him." Heather could not hear what Dan was specifically saying, but she could hear yelling and knew it was "angry."...

When asked by Det. Zeb Dobis if Dan ever got violent, Heather stated yes. [Corrigan observes that they were "were mutually abusive with each other."] When asked what she thought would have happened had Dan been able to get a hold of Brice, Heather stated she thought "he would have tried to kill him."...

Given the relationship between Heather and Brice which was known to Dan, the prior confrontation at Fatt Boys [a local restaurant], the manner in which Dan entered the garage, Dan’s obvious anger, Brice's belief that Dan wanted to "kick his ass," and Dan's refusal to stop when ordered to do so, Brice's belief that Dan intended to assault him was a reasonable one. Heather herself was of the opinion that Dan would have assaulted Brice had he been allowed the opportunity to do so.

It seems to me these details, if accurate, would have made the shooting justified even without the changes that the state legislature made to Montana's self-defense law in 2009. Prior to those amendments, the law said someone confronting an intruder in his home "is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the entry is made or attempted in violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner" and he "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault" or "the commission of a forcible felony." In 2009 the legislature removed the "violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner" language but otherwise left this provision essentially unchanged. The Times cites that excision as an explanation for Corrigan's decision not to prosecute Harper. But wouldn't Fredenberg's behavior qualify as "violent, riotous, or tumultuous"?

The legislature also added a provision saying that "a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force." But according to a story about the case in the Flathead Beacon, there was no duty to retreat from home intruders in Montana prior to this change, which merely codified what was already the rule for such situations.

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, says (as paraphrased by the Beacon) "the issue is not about the castle doctrine because Montana has allowed self-defense in an occupied structure for a long time...but rather about the presumption of innocence." The paper continues: "In any other crime, a person would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, Marbut said, but before 2009, anyone claiming self-defense had the burden to prove that innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove guilt." The 2009 legislation says: "In a criminal trial, when the defendant has offered evidence of justifiable use of force, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justified."

Although that provision may very well have influenced Corrigan's decision, this presumption of innocence seems only fair, and it is not unusual. According to Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a law professor at Northern Kentucky University who discussed the issue in connection with the prosecution of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin, it is the rule "in virtually every state."

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: banglist; defense; domestic; mt
This case has been posted before. This has a bit more perspective.
1 posted on 10/24/2012 6:33:28 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
As opposed to Bryce Harper.
2 posted on 10/24/2012 6:36:04 PM PDT by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic

Whom I believe should be the NL Rookie of the Year.

3 posted on 10/24/2012 7:34:08 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Writers spill a lot of ink about his attitude. It’s not what you want to teach your kids. But neither was Ty Cobb’s.

4 posted on 10/24/2012 7:40:33 PM PDT by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic

Writers can stuff it.

Harper hustles his ass off on every play.

5 posted on 10/24/2012 7:46:10 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Like Pete Rose. We’re not to our knowledge nominating for sainthood. Just good baseball.

6 posted on 10/24/2012 7:56:24 PM PDT by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic

Yes, the Rose comparison is apt.

Many times this season Bryce Harper hustled doubles out of singles, and once stole home against a pitcher who tried to humiliate him.

He also laid out for plays in the field in a position that was new to him, and he competed at the highest level. Often with his arm.

He also studied his opposition and made sage adjustments, often in same plate appearance. He displayed remarkable opposite field power from the left side. He ended his five month season two short of Tony Conigliaro’s 48 year old record for rookie HRs.

All of this at the ripe age of 19. I stand with many Nats fans who can’t wait till this guy gets good.

7 posted on 10/24/2012 8:24:35 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Did you forget to post this under “Baseball”???

8 posted on 10/24/2012 8:49:11 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I remember this case. This was the unbaseball player who was having an affair with the other guy's wife, and provoked him into a confrontation in his garage which gave him the legal right to kill the husband.

The prosecutor said that the shooting was lawful but not right.

9 posted on 10/24/2012 9:21:29 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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