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: ...
“Michele Keiffer, Fredenberg’s mother-in-law, is incensed by the recent developments in the case, and has started a petition to change the law. She is trying to gather support on a Facebook page called “Justice for Dan Fredenberg,” and has posted the petition on the website www.change.org.”
Wouldn't his mother-in-law be the adulterous wife's mother?
Talk amongst yourselves.
You are making stuff up now.
It depends. Ordinary consanguinity or North Georgia consanguinity?
(My apologies to North Georgia)
What question was answered for you? Why do you think someone attacked in their own residence can’t defend themselves legally?
Ah, thank you. Then the notion that he kept advancing is much more believable.
Please never sit on a jury.
Please never sit on a jury.
Did he have a phone in the house to call 911 to report the situation and the time to do it??? If so then just how fearful was he really??? Why did he choose the gun instead of the phone???
Was it daytime???
Just because you say you are afraid for your life doesn't mean you are???
Was he afraid after the first shot??? How about the second shot??? Still afraid???
None of your questions mean a damn thing. The husband was drunk and on the other guys land without permission.
End of story.
Why??? because I think that this should go to a Grand Jury???
No. Because you aren’t thinking to begin with...
That would be three good shots.
Am I??? Check the law on self-defense.
Yes, you are. You have no idea what happened in that garage.
You are drunk and on my property. You are advancing on me through my garage despite being verbally warned that I am armed and prepared to defend myself.
I shoot you until I deem you are no longer a threat. I’m a decent shot, but I’d still probably dump about half a magazine into you just to be sure. That would be SEVEN rounds of 10mm 180gr XTP’s.
Under Castle Doctrine... Your first mistake was coming on my land uninvited. Your second was not leaving when you were told to.
As it should be.
Apparently, Mr. Fredenberg acted stupidly, and paid for it with his life.
Well -- that might very well answer a few questions.
Did he go from the garage into the house to get it? Apparently not.
Was there a door between the garage and the house that could be closed? Immaterial, there is "no duty to retreat".
If so -- then just how fearful was he really?
Only the shooter knows that.
Did he have a phone in the house to call 911 to report the situation and the time to do it?
Doesn't appear so.
If so then just how fearful was he really
Already asked and answered.
Why did he choose the gun instead of the phone?
Because phones are very poor weapons for self defense.
Was it daytime?
Immaterial.
Just because you say you are afraid for your life doesn't mean you are?
Unless you are a mind reader then only the shooter knows.
Was he afraid after the first shot, how about the second shot, still afraid?
In a self defense situation you shoot to stop the threat. If he was justified with the first shot the rest don't matter.
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.