Just like the way women abuse the "domestic restraining order".
Posted on 10/29/2012 2:17:44 PM PDT by neverdem
Numerous writers, most recently Emily Bazelon of Slate, have touted the Brice Harper case from Montana as evidence against the castle doctrine, which allows people to use lethal force when it’s necessary to keep intruders off their property. These accounts tend to minimize the threat that Harper faced when he shot and killed Dan Fredenberg, and while it’s a difficult case, it hardly proves that the castle doctrine is bad policy.
Harper was in some sort of relationship (he refused to call it an “affair” in interviews with police) with Dan Fredenberg’s wife, Heather (who said it was “pretty much” an affair). The Fredenbergs’ marriage was troubled; Heather told police that the two were mutually abusive, that Dan had a drinking problem, and that she’d told her husband she was “going to look for someone else.” In August, Dan and Harper got into an altercation at a local restaurant, and a bouncer intervened.
On September 22, Harper and Heather were in a car together when they realized Dan was following them. They returned to Harper’s house; Harper got out of the car, began walking toward his home, and realized that Dan Fredenberg had stopped his car, too.
Here’s how Bazelon describes what happened next:
Heather Fredenberg told [Harper] to go inside and not to answer if her husband came to find him. Instead, Harper went inside, got his pistol from his bedroom, and stood at the door from his laundry room to his garage while Fredenberg approached. Harper told the police, “I told him I had a gun, but he just kept coming at me.” He also claims Fredenberg was “charging at him, like he was on a mission.” When Fredenberg was a few feet away, Harper shot him three times.
Bazelon drew this summary from a letter written by the prosecutor who declined to try Harper, but her word choice — “approached,” “claims” — fails to convey the urgency of the situation. Heather Fredenberg backed up Harper’s testimony that Bazelon’s “approach” was in fact aggressive, and that Harper warned her husband that he had a gun. She also told police her husband “would have tried to kill” Harper if he’d gotten his hands on him. What’s more, Harper says he pointed his gun at Fredenberg and told him to stop, but Fredenberg continued toward him.
As Jacob Sullum noted over at Reason, Montana’s recent expansions to its castle-doctrine law are irrelevant here. Even before the changes, the state allowed lethal force in cases where an intruder is being “violent, riotous, or tumultuous” and such force is needed to prevent an assault.
Bazelon seems to think that Harper should be held accountable for his decision to arm himself and wait rather than lock himself inside — that is, she believes in a “duty to retreat.” Retreating might have been the prudent course of action in this particular case, though it’s hard to say how Fredenberg would have reacted — would Bazelon expect Harper to stay hidden as Fredenberg damaged his property, for example? — and it’s even harder to blame Harper for a decision he made while he was clearly being threatened with physical violence.
Also, it’s worth remembering that not all home intrusions happen in the context of infidelity. For the law to impose a duty to retreat on Harper, it would have to impose a duty to retreat on everyone — meaning that home intruders create a duty on the part of their victims not to hurt them. Such laws make a mockery of self-defense and property rights, and embolden criminals.
By all accounts, Harper was on his own property, faced an imminent assault, warned his aggressor he was armed, and fired his gun only when Fredenberg refused to stop. The surrounding context makes this case difficult, but it’s hard to see how a different law could have averted this tragedy while maintaining citizens’ right to stand up to home intruders, rather than cowering from them.
— Robert VerBruggen (@RAVerBruggen) is a deputy managing editor of National Review.
This was a tough case for the prosecutor who concluded that the shooter did not do the right thing but what he did was lawful and therefore he could not prosecute him.
Otherewise this ambush the hubby stuff will become much more common. We need this stuff out in the open ~ not hidden in garages.
It is possible that they lured the husband to the property and killed him. This was not a typical home invasion.
Just like the way women abuse the "domestic restraining order".
Plus, the civil damages ~ she can sue his pants off now.
This is a tough call. Yes Harper had the complete right to defend himself and his property. At the same time though it almost sounds like by standing in the doorway he was welcoming the chance to shoot the man. If he had taken the woman’s advice and stayed inside maybe someone wouldnt have had to die. Castle law isnt the problem, the intentions of the people are possible at fault and their possible exploitation of the law to get rid of a threat to their relationship.
This is a tough call. Yes Harper had the complete right to defend himself and his property. At the same time though it almost sounds like by standing in the doorway he was welcoming the chance to shoot the man. If he had taken the woman’s advice and stayed inside maybe someone wouldnt have had to die. Castle law isnt the problem, the intentions of the people are possible at fault and their possible exploitation of the law to get rid of a threat to their relationship.
You sir, are an idiot.
Agreed.
The shooter was guilty of extreme provocation, which should annul and Castle Doctrine rights he had.
And you call yourself a Christian and a patriot and a Conservative but you are a barbarian, and anti-American and a mind-numbed, robot-like, knee-jerk Leftwingtard!
Now, get down and grovel ~ i want 6 miles of broken glass low crawling for that one!
Had he done so, his version of the incident would have been more persuasive.
It is possible that they lured the husband to the property and killed him
Doesn’t sound like he was lured. Sounds more like he was stalking and went into a rage
In other words, your feelings tell you that the shooter was justified. There remains, however, zero verifiable evidence that he was.
Not a tough call at all. Don’t know why anyone thinks that.
Fredenberg was on Harper’s land, acting in a threatening fashion towards him. It was Harper’s land and he had no duty to retreat. Further, the woman might have needed Harper’s help if Fredenberg turned violent towards her.
It was a good shoot all the way.
Doesn’t matter if the jerk was banging Fredenberg’s wife. You don’t get attack a man (or errant wife), or threaten to do so, on his land for any reason.
The gullible on both sides of the political divide are not analyzing this case logically, but emotionally.
That's exactly the question at hand. He was unarmed and there were no signs of a struggle - the two survivors of the incident are highly motivated to make that claim. But they cannot prove it.
The wife and her boyfriend say that they were followed, and say that he trespassed and say that he threatened them. But there is zero proof that he was not instead invited and then ambushed.
There is no physical evidence to support their version of events, just the word of two people who have a strong incentive to lie.
Very good point, TB. Their story is that Fredenburg followed them for some time, then had an argument with his wife and then confronted Harper. Yet there was no 911 call. They seemed to feel that the situation was entirely within their control. And, if it was an ambush, it actually was.
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.