Posted on 10/11/2012 4:02:37 AM PDT by marktwain
You realize that neither the wife or the shooter say they had a sexual relationship. The wife says she had an on again off again emotional relationship with the shooter.
This of course, may be news to the shooter, it may be entirely in the mind of the wife. The fact that the shooter was in the process of moving to a different state inclines me to believe that he wasn’t invested in any relationship with the wife.
Still think this is a case of a stupid drama queen who was trying to string along one man while using him to punish/manipulate her husband.
"She went over to Harper’s house to help him clean so he could move. Harper had approached her at work and asked for her help several days earlier, she said."
"HEATHER was getting the twins ready to leave Harper’s home shortly after that. She asked if Brice would take a quick drive around the block with her to listen to her truck’s wheel bearings, which she thought were going bad. They drove around the block and eventually saw Dan driving behind them."
Her Story - I was at the shooters house we drove around so he could tell me what was wrong with my truck. I saw my husband followed us, we went back to shooter's house.
She did not say we were at my house and ran from my husband, like you insinuated. You need to keep up and not make up your own story.
Sorry, every single assertion by the wife is suspect. Her claims are not ‘facts’ without further analysis.
Why? The law is clear, had the confrontation took place at the husbands residence, I’d agree, however, given that the husband went to the cheaters home to confront him, sorry, he should have handled it differently.
Also, I don’t think what the cheater did was right in regards to the affair. Husband messed up in his reaction.
Wow you use her storyline and then say her storyline is no good. You are really an idiot.
Sorry to bother you ~ but if you can use her storyline so can I. The difference is I don’t have to accept every word of it. She’s suspect.
The prosecutor on what was right versus what was lawful:
“Under Montana law, he did have the right to arm himself and, yes, under Montana law he had the right to stand in that doorway and confront Dan as Dan entered the garage without invitation.”
Corrigan explained that, despite the legality of Harper’s actions, he did not believe they were the right actions.
“Although you may not know from some of the blogs, I think most reasonable people would believe that the choice between taking someone’s life or causing grievous harm and taking the opportunity to retreat into your house safely and close the door and call police, that that’s probably the reasonable thing to do, at least that is my opinion,” Corrigan said.
He went on to say that despite his opinion, Montana law does not require a person to take that action in his or her own home.
“That’s the unfortunate thing about this whole situation,” he said. “Cooler heads and a little more thought into the consequences of one’s actions and this whole tragedy could have been avoided.”
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_3723d23c-1336-11e2-80eb-0019bb2963f4.html
“Brice Harper, shooter, stated publicly several times that he had a gun, wasn’t afraid of Dan, and once even said he ‘would blow Dan’s head off’. When he and Heather were going around the block and knew Dan was following them Brice had TIME to decide what he was going to do. In a self defense situation the confrontation happens and you have to decide. Brice was driving around processing what he was going to do. So he DECIDED on murder. He didn’t decide to lock his house and call 911. He didn’t decide to keep driving and call 911. He didn’t decide to drive to the cops and get help. He DECIDED he was going to get out of the car, get a 40 caliber revolver and MURDER Danny. If THAT is self defense, we should all be terrified.
http://www.facebook.com/JusticeForDanFredenberg
The problem is, everything posted there is conjecture. You weren’t there, I wasn’t there. Did he have the ability to retreat? Did he have the time to retreat and close the door? Was his assailant between him and any possible retreat? This is why retreat laws are BS and ill thought out.
In a nutshell, guy comes on to his property to violently settle a grievance. Guy gets shot and killed for his trouble. His mistake was going on to the other guys property to deal with the issue... violently.
If someone comes on my property with intent to do harm, I’m not retreating. I have no legal obligation to do so. Duty to retreat has the very high potential of putting others at harm. What if someone comes on my property to commit a violent act. I retreat in the house, said person follows me. Now, my wife and daughter may be home and in direct danger because I retreated because some idiot busy body law maker decided he knows best how I should live my life than I do. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I’m eliminating the threat immediately and keeping my family safe.
Stand you ground laws are being put in place around the nation because of examples like I just typed above. Those scenarios have happened and will happen.
So, if one shoots an unarmed man we should take his word for it.
No clue if he is telling truth but we do know he was with the victim’s wife, so he seems to be less than honorable.
<>The problem is, everything posted there is conjecture.<>
So is the hypothetical example that you gave.
<> You weren’t there, I wasn’t there.<>
But those who said this were:
“The neighbors are witnesses to the fact that verify her story that he shot him once, looked over at her, she screamed bloody murder, ‘Why did you shoot him? Why did you shoot him?,’” said Ron. “He looked over at her again, turned, and shot Dan twice more. She swears up and down Dan never moved that whole time other than clutching his chest from the first shot.”
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForDanFredenberg
The first shot to the abdomen was the one that killed him. The other two were gratuitous — but telling.
Sometimes a case rests on the answer to a single question:
Why didn’t he close the garage door before going for his gun??? or why didn’t he close the garage door after he got his gun??? or why did he wait for him at the doorway to the mudroom inside the garage instead of the entrance to the garage???
Did he leave the garage door open as an invitation knowing and expecting her husband to come in through it and then giving him the right to shoot to kill??
Would that be evidence of premeditation???
Unless you have proof otherwise.
I take it you don't like the idea of being innocent until proven guilty?
You would prefer a system in which you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence?
I wrote that I did not know the truth here, just like you don’t. You are assuming the shooter is innocent. Did you think OJ was innocent before the trial? Just curious.
Again, it’s conjecture. Witnesses said. Fine, but the source is a site that is based on getting “justice” for the victim.
What it boils down to is this. Dude’s wife cheated on him with this Dan guy. Dude get mad, goes to confront the guy at the guys home on his property. That in itself is intent. He advances on the guy and gets shot. Dan should have kept his hands off the guys wife. The guy should have called Dan and told him to stay the hell away from his wife. Instead, he instigated violence.
He didn’t have to go to the guys house to confront him. He did. He was warned by Dan about the gun. He continued to advance when he shouldn’t have.
Really poor judgement on the part of both parties. I have to wonder why people are blaming it on the Stand Your Ground law. This is a symptom of a sick society when the real issue is the adultery that happened that led up to the shooting.
<>I have to wonder why people are blaming it on the Stand Your Ground law.<>
It’s not the law but its application in this case.
The reasonable fear factor is always part of the application. Was the shooter actually in reasonable fear of his life???
When did he become fearful???
He didn’t seem to fear him when he asked his wife to come over to the house for some house cleaning. As a matter of fact that invitation on his part could be viewed as a provocation of the tensions between them on his part.
Was he fearful when her husband called her and found out that she was at his house??? Nope.
Was he fearful when he subsequently decided to take a ride around the neighborhood with her after that call??? Nope.
As far as the husband not having the right to be at his house — the husband’s property was there — his wife and his kids. That gave him the right to be there.
Was he fearful enough when they pulled up to his house, and he went inside for his gun but left the garage door open behind him and made no effort to close it even after getting his gun??? Would a fearful man leave the door open behind him???
The wife seems to have given conflicting statements about what happened inside the garage and without her testimony no prosecution would have been possible.
The response of the prosecuting attorney tells us that the decision not to prosecute was not a slam dunk. He called the shooting lawful but not right.
Even that may not be sufficient.
Two words: Trayvon Martin.
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.