[redfreedom]

“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.

[muawiyah]

There was a time the 24 year old would have been considered a FLEEING FELON and would simply be fair game. Any deaths that occured during the course of his flight would have been charged as murders against him.

Bet that still works in civil court ~ there's no Castle Doctrine there.