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: ...
"The legislature changed that and made it a prosecutor’s responsibility to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was not justified in using deadly force."
As it should be, given the presumption of innocence, the accused should never have to proven a damn thing, including the reasonableness of their belief regarding imminent assault.
It should always be the responsibility of the State to prove that the conditions do not exist for use of deadly force by the defendant.
PERIOD.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_87097cc0-1336-11e2-873d-0019bb2963f4.html
My opinion is, this woman has a few screws loose.
She wanted her cake and eat it too.
Now, she realizes her sons have lost thier dad and someday they may blame her so she is trying to correct that now. I say too late. She holds the guilt and she should. Play with fire and sooner or later you will get burned.
I hope the good people of Montana see right through this and ignore her.
I feel bad for two little boys, they are the true victims in this case.
Just my opinion.
The wife is a poisonous piece of work. Here’s my two bit opinion based on my knowledge of women (which is a lot, because I am one).
Heather loves drama and playing helpless damsel in distress.
All she wanted was two men fighting over her. Later she could portray her husband as the mean abusive drunk to further shame and manipulate him into (probably) expensive gift giving. She’d make him feel inadequate and guilty for life for either beating or getting beaten.
All the while playing helpless apologetic damsel to the younger man, so she could sob on his shoulder and tie him up emotionally so he doesn’t move on to someone more available.
Only this psychodrama got out of her control because Mr. Harper refused to take the beating she had set her older, jealous and drunken husband up to dish out.
DETAILS OF THE fatal encounter between Harper and Dan Fredenberg were revealed Tuesday in a report Corrigan sent to Kalispell Police Chief Roger Nasset and two detectives.
What follows is the summary of Corrigan’s narrative:
On the day of the shooting, Heather was visiting Harper to help him clean and get ready to move out of state. When she received a call from Dan asking where she was and if she was with Harper, she refused to answer. At the time, Dan was driving around looking for her.
At roughly 8 p.m., Heather and Harper went for a ride in her truck so he could help figure out what was wrong with it. Heather then noticed Dan was following them and she drove back to Harper’s 244 Empire Loop home.
Heather let Harper out of her truck and told him to go inside, close his garage door and not answer the front door if Dan came up. As she began to leave, she noticed Dan get out of his vehicle and walk into the garage toward Harper, “walking up to him fast, cussing at him.”
Before Dan made it inside the garage, Harper had retrieved his pistol from his bedroom and returned to the laundry room doorway, which opened into the garage.
When Dan approached Harper, he pointed at him and said “you better not point that gun at me,” Harper said. Harper said he pointed the gun at Dan and told him to stop, but he did not, at which point Harper shot Dan in the abdomen.
Dan then bent over, said “you shot me,” and continued toward him. Harper then shot Dan two more times, at which point Dan collapsed at the foot of the stairs, roughly two feet away from him. The first shot caused the wound that killed Dan, while the second shot struck him in the left shoulder and the third grazed the right side of his face.
Harper and Heather both told police that Dan was approaching Harper aggressively at the time of the shooting, and a neighbor also told police that she heard Harper say repeatedly that “he was coming at me.”
Harper said he did not know what Dan was capable of or what he was going to do, but believed Dan would have tried to hit him. Harper did not know if Dan had a weapon, but knew he was mad at him. He said he was “scared for his life” and that he did not want to shoot Dan.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_8064190a-123e-11e2-8fda-0019bb2963f4.html
As noted elsewhere in the thread, the guy who got shot was the husband, who came over to the boyfriend’s house.
BTW what if this whole thing was a set up by a scheming wife to get rid of her husband.???
Is there any charge that a prosecuting attorney could bring against her having already declared this shooting self-defense???
"Pardon me, Mr. Criminal Assailant on my property, and please refrain from attacking me while I locate my cellphone and call the police to tell them I'm in danger and need assistance."
Ludicrous.
Her story is here:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_d0de63b4-0f4a-11e2-98fb-001a4bcf887a.html
Three quick shots don’t take that long. IF (notice the if) the shooter was in fear of his life, and the other party was coming for him, shooting till the threat stop could be reasonable.
That is how they train cops. Shoot until the threat stops.
I agree completely, and I’m surprised so few “conservatives” get it.
You f*** another man’s wife, you commit extreme provocation. It’s YOU who are putting your head in the lion’s mouth.
The “castle doctrine” should not (and does not) shelter you from confrontations that you cause. This dips*** deserved the asswhipping he was about to get, and if these circumstances aren’t a case for a jury, nothing is.
I'd say the Castle Doctrine extends to all the various rooms and cavities in the family home, wouldn't you?
The 24 year old boy should have expected a sound thrashing for messing with his neighbor’s wife. He wouldn’t now be a murderer if he hadn’t laughed at the Ten Commandments.
That means her daughter and her 24 year old boy friend probably ought to hat up and get out of there yesterday if not sooner.
Fighting Words ~ that’d be a reason you should stand there and take it like a man ~ doing your neighbor’s wife ought to count for something
He was convicted of murder, claims of self-defense not withstanding.
Can always count on you to bring the apples when everyone else is discussing oranges...
Is there any charge that a prosecuting attorney could bring against her having already declared this shooting self-defense???
Sure, I can think of several under MD law. Not familiar with MT law.
Again, the police/prosecutor should have been looking at that angle and sought evidence (phone/text records, credit card purchases, etc...) that would establish that crime.
The article is poorly written...but one would assume that those angles were looked at and LE did not have any evidence to that effect.
An ambush?
The family will find some lawyer to go after him in a civil case and that will be a serious matter for him.
Bet that still works in civil court ~ there's no Castle Doctrine there.
Conjecture and assuming facts not in evidence.
Husband was where he shouldn’t have gone. Period.
Showing up drunk and unarmed to assault someone on their own property is just asking for Darwin to come along for the ride.
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.