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: ...
Nor does anybody but the shooter.
I think your questions just have no bearing on the situation. Since he shot the intruder, I suppose we can assume he was holding the firearm at the time. He says he warned the man to stay back but the man advanced on him anyway. With no evidence to the contrary there is little choice but to accept that.
Advancing on an armed person is a serious threat— if I have someone at gunpoint and they advance on me, I can assume that they wish to harm me and take my weapon. That’s a deadly threat.
It may well be that the whole scene was a set-up, planned to kill the husband. There’s nothing the prosecutor can do with that however until some evidence appears to support the theory. Until then the only available evidence is the statement given by the shooter. Sometimes that’s all there is.
Exactly.
Tell your grandma that a lot of us women wear pants, too.
“The Castle Doctrine does not exist so that you can kill someone who is confronting you verbally.”
I believe this is the Montana Statute:
“45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.”
The shooter was in an occupied structure and firmly believed this drunk was going to assault him. You don’t go into someone else’s home and make threats, especially if he’s been doing your old lady, there are very strong emotions here on both sides.
The shooter had every reason to believe he at least would have had the hell beaten out of him, if not killed when the matter should have been settled in court by the guy divorcing his wife.
You are really good at picking only a part of a sentence and not the whole sentence.
And “yes” I don’t think it should go to a grand jury.
Hope you get a visit soon.
wonder how much of a setup this is... had he been convicted, wifey would have gotten rid of hubby AND lover, and been free to start all over again...
Yep. Sounds like it was a fun time around there. The frisky Mrs. Fredenberg claiming that Mr. Fredenberg had a problem with the bottle, and that the two of them beat each other up when alcohol was around. Mrs. Fredenberg (conveniently or coincidentally) sitting in her car outside when the shooting occurred, and telling the police that she had warned her boy-toy Harper not to open the door when hubby came a-callin'.
Seems as if it was hubby who needed a warning, as the events played out.
I have a lot of trouble believing this woman’s story.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_d0de63b4-0f4a-11e2-98fb-001a4bcf887a.html
Exactly... After reading the story posted in #70, I’m starting to think maybe she set the whole thing up and is now trying to play the grieving widow.
Hmmmmm. That's a tough call either way.
And yes, I'd kill someone trying to get in my wife's pants. I just wouldn't get liquored up and go after them while they were at home.
Nope. Still not...
Once you invade someone else’s property looking for a confrontation... You’ve removed any possible claim to “victim” status.
“Yeah, I put my head in the lions mouth... But I didn’t think it’d bite me.”
Just to be sure.
22 and married to a 40 year old?
Yeah... Her story smells like yesterday’s diapers.
But now that it has been ruled self-defense what can the prosecutor do???
Nothing. Unless she confesses.
Take the class. The first thing they teach you is your job is to put multiple bullets into the target without hesitation.
In retrospect, Fredenberg’s beef should have been with his wife, not with her lover in her lover’s garage.
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.