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: ...
Hmmmmm
Part of the idea behind the castle doctrine is that a person should be allowed to peaceably hold and protect their own stuff ~ and what you look for is that you were there at home, or in your car, or with your stuff (front yard, barn, wherever) lawfully, and some dude comes along and does some unlawful stuff in or on your property ~ that is, you didn't invite him and he didn't have your permission to BE THERE so you can even pursue him down the road and thrash or kill him!
Not knowing just how far Montana went with this off-premises idea, but if they went the whole way the husband was fully justified in chasing this kid down and doing bad stuff to him. Just because he fled to his own home really shouldn't defend him against the husband's efforts to protect his own stuff.
I don't think this one is over ~ but some lawyer is going to make a lot of money on the deal, possibly even from the local jurisdiction's taxpayers if the prosecutor holds firm on his idea that there's no prosecution needed.
Wonder how often the prosecutor gets into this sort of indiscretion himself ~
The kid and his girlfriend are going down hard.
Your facts are wrong... Again. They were in HER truck. Not a car. If you can't get even that right, it's no wonder you aren't coming to the logical conclusions.
Doesn't matter if the husband chased them from New York to Los Angeles... If you are trespassing with intent to cause bodily harm...
You lose.
Not unless a lot more evidence appears. As it is, it was already ruled self defense under Castle Doctrine. Another fact you've over looked...
Is the kid a scumbag? Definitely. Is the wife a skank? No doubt there.
Did the drunk guy commit suicide via Castle Doctrine? For certain...
It's a fairly complex plot but there are people who imagine there's always a new way to steal, or a new way to murder, and get away with it.
This one will eventually have a different outcome.
Looking through MT law references quickly the analyst caught my eye with the note that you'd need a court to decide on most any disputes.
Might even be the Mother In Law's car ~ and that could make a serious difference in further actions downstream.
MT is not a community property law.
The shooter was not at the husband’s house at all. The shooter and the wife where at the shooters house and then went for a ride in the wife’s truck and returned to the shooters house. The husband the made an ass of himself and got shot and killed for his stupidity. The husband was not a victim he was a dumbass.
Did you see the part where she and her boyfriend were fleeing in HER TRUCK? That's when hubby caught up to them, so she took her boyfriend back to his house ~ where he got his gun and shot the hubby.
Muy interesante.
It's not any different than if he'd had his pistol with him and started firing out the window at the husband out on the public road.
.08 is not drunk out of your mind BTW.
It's quite arguably the case the husband was invited eh!
I'd suggest you not try this.
Now, what kind of truck? Some places small SUVs may be referred to as cars or trucks, and this is MT where real men drive real trucks, so what was it.
Don't criticize my choise of words for the motor vehicle unless you can answer the questions about WHO REALLY OWNED IT and was it registered as a truck or a car.
Get your facts straight before trying to pick a fight.
Their story they had been at the shooter’s house. The hubby caught up to them on the highway somewhere. There’s an evidentiary gap here and the prosecutor should have picked up on that.
Wrong. Again. None of the news stories say anything such thing.
It's not any different than if he'd had his pistol with him and started firing out the window at the husband out on the public road.
You are just trolling now.
Keep making it up as you go along, someone may believe you.
That's DUI range in most States.
Husband wasn't invited. He was trespassing.
You on the other hand are well over .10 BAC and apparently climbing...
That's rich coming from you...
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_d0de63b4-0f4a-11e2-98fb-001a4bcf887a.html ~ in her truck ~ with his infant chilluns’ ~ she’s the source of the story that it was just a drive around the block, and she’s the source of the story about how her fingerprints got on the gun, and she’s the source of just all sorts of things for which there is no other evidence.........................Now that her husband is dead she wants a different outcome......
So come up with other evidence and present it here.
And by evidence I mean a link to other articles that shed new light. Not just more of your same old conjecture and BS.
Now she wants her boyfriend put on trial for murder.
She's screwy.
On that, we agree.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_d0de63b4-0f4a-11e2-98fb-001a4bcf887a.html ~ ratman, keep up with the story ~ there’s just all sorts of stuff popping up. And apologize. I didn’t make up your girlfriend’s story.
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.