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: ...
/johnny
Hey - watch it!
It’s them Alamabans that practice that there consanguanity, boy!
;)
don’t worry I am automatically disqualified
AND on hubby’s life insurance money
If Fredenberg left the other man’s property, he wouldn’t have been shot. Or it would have been murder when he was shot in the back.
Remember, the accused is INNOCENT unless PROVEN guilty. In the absence of any other evidence, shot in the chest while on another person’s property doesn’t leave any proof of wrongdoing.
Northeast Alabama. Sand Mountain. Enough said.
;)
Although my experience with patrician Bostonians was that certain families intermarried enough that the same could be said for Beantown (home of my beloved Redsox, who are watching the postseason from their sofas, as nature apparently intends, notwithstanding a brief period of aberration).
sleeping with another man’s wife usually ends the other way so I can only imagine he did fear for his safety.
She picked a particularly awkward time to have Harper listen to her wheel bearings, didn’t she?
But . . . but . . . the widow Fredenberg says it was only an on-again, off-again 'emotional' affair that was never sexual.
Call it what you may, but if I am in the confines of my roof and walls and you enter unannounced, uninvited and in any way raise your voice or hand, I FEEL THREATENED.
End of story.
Yes, if I have time to go to another portion of my quarters to retrieve a weapon, I more than likely have time to pick up a cell phone and hit #9, hopefully for the likes of some of these fools, that call goes through prior my dispatching you, but it doesn’t mean you are not going to be needing medical attention.
“Why did you shoot him 6 times”?
“That is the capacity of the weapon I had in hand”.
Of course, no cute quips or asides directly after the incident - NEVER to the press unless ‘they’(authorities) are starting to railroad you - and then under advice of counsel.
There is a very fine line to post shooting reactions, can’t be to confident, remorseful or act ‘out of it’.
First request to LEO - “Please call me an ambulance”, of course at 73 I will be given some ‘leeway’ etc.
Not bad being on record for a 911 call either, where you are requesting medical help also.
In other words, he committed suicide.
A little TOO convenient, if you ask me. Sounds like she was hoping hubby would show up at the house, he couldn’t find it(?), so they go out and she leads him right back to the scene of the crime.
On Hawaii Five O this week there was a triangle murder that they wrapped up very quickly. Although the murdered husbands sister shot the evil wife once she found out about the setup. TV scripts can be very convenient that way sometimes.
In some states, you don’t have to flee in terror before an attacker. In some, you are allowed to stand your ground and let the attacker take the consequences of being an attacker.
There was a case years ago where a woman fled. Up the stairs, into her bedroom, shut the door. The guy with a knife broke thru the door and she shot & killed him. She was prosecuted because she didn’t jump out the second story window in an attempt to escape. The jury didn’t see things the way the prosecutor did, tho...
Here’s her story:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_d0de63b4-0f4a-11e2-98fb-001a4bcf887a.html
Game over.
Maybe so, but does it occur to anyone that a man who is knowingly sleeping with another man's wife ought to get his a$$ beaten?
There was a time when the legal system enforced adultery laws. Unless I am mistaken, somewhere in the Bible it mentions that it is the duty of the rulers to punish murderers so that the family of the victims will not feel compelled to seek out justice themselves.
I would argue that the same logic ought to apply for adultery. Of course we are a long way from where we used to be as a nation.
The legal system; So full of technicalities and so void of justice.
“It does make life more difficult for the prosecutors... Basically, if self-defense is raised, it shifts the burden to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was not justified.”
This says more than he intended. Examine that statement.
“Shifts the burden to the state...” As opposed to what? Instead of them proving that you are guilty, you have to prove that you are *not* guilty?
It doesn’t work that way. There is no, zero assumption of guilt where you have to prove you are *not* guilty *first*.
So taking his statement at face value, he wants a gun control regime that *assumes* guilt of a gun user who uses his gun, without the state first having to prove he broke the law when he did so.
The guy was fooling around with his wife, in his house, to me that is enough to say the shots were warranted. You come to my house in a threatening manner and I may give you a chance to turn around and leave but you better make up your mind REAL fast.
I think that it is really cool for the guy that he was able to kill him three times. There won’t be many people that will want to fool around with his wife if they know they are going to get killed three times.
Of course he should have. Leather gauntlet across the face, choose your seconds, see you at dawn...
That doesn't happen any more. Much to our societal detriment IMO.
As a former police officer and former prosecutor, the issue in the case is not the castle doctrine but the lack of evidence sufficient to rise to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction.
The reporter should be holding that prosecutor’s feet to the fire. He openly admits that the law still allows for prosecution of shootings inside someone’s home. What the law does, rightfully, is prevent zealous prosecutors with an agenda from bringing a marginal case like this one to a jury in order to extort a plea bargain. The law forces prosecutors to truly evaluate the admissible evidence available to them before simply charging someone because they don’t approve of individuals exercising self defense.
I ask you, would you feel the same way about the castle doctrine if your wife or daughter were required to retreat in your home before shooting and killing a potential rapist? Because that is the crux of the law…in laymen’s terms - recognizing that in your own home you have ZERO duty to worry about killing a criminal.
As a prosecutor I routinely saw other prosecutors and police push marginal cases against people they had a personal bias against. One of the most egregious involved a shooting in someone’s apartment. Maryland has no castle doctrine because Maryland can’t stand anyone actually removing a criminal from the system other than the police. Multiple shooters who were gang members attempted to break into the apartment shared by one of gang members mother and her boyfriend with the intention of killing the boyfriend. They had to come up an interior stairwell to get to the second floor apartment. Boyfriend was able, under fire, to put rounds downrange (from top of stairwell) and hit two of the three gang members who then fled. I should mention that all individuals involved are black in a predominantly white county.
The investigators on the scene wanted to charge boyfriend with three counts of attempted murder and were supported by one of the prosecutors in our office simply because the boyfriend had a criminal record and he had stepped outside the apartment onto the landing outside the apartment door. They were arguing that he should have remained in the apartment and called police and should only have discharged his firearm if the three individuals breached the door.
Fortunately cooler heads prevailed, mostly because the elected State’s Attorney knew there was no way even an all-white jury would convict the boyfriend. (Rural people, contrary to popular belief, place more value on quaint concepts such as right and wrong over skin color.) A fellow prosecutor and I were simply arguing that would any of us wish to be held to the standard of self-defense that the police and the other prosecutor were attempting to create if we were threatened under similar circumstances.
So examine this particular incident.
Presumably the police subpoenaed the all three party’s phone records to see if there might be collusion between the wife and the paramour? I can’t tell because the article does not discuss that issue. Had the police found such evidence of collusion that would certainly provide the prosecutor with evidence to rebut the paramour’s reasonable fear of his life being threatened.
Presumably they checked records to either confirm or call into question wife’s assertion of domestic violence? I can’t tell because the article does not discuss that issue – it simply mentions the wife claims domestic violence occurred.
Presumably the police interrogated both the wife and the paramour?
What evidence does the prosecutor actually have available to them that I can glean from the article?
Deceased is deceased at hand of wife’s paramour.
Deceased legally intoxicated.
Confronts wife’s paramour at paramour’s home while legally intoxicated.
Deceased unarmed.
Deceased fired three times. (all the defense attorney would do is ask the testifying officer two questions: "isn't it true you are trained to keep shooting until y=the threat you perceive is no longer a threat?" (answer is "yes"); followed by "isn't it true that means the target stops moving?" (the answer is yes) and that eliminates the number of shots as evidence of anything other than three shots were fired)
What evidence does the defense have available?
Deceased legally intoxicated.
Confronts wife’s paramour at paramour’s home while legally intoxicated.
Wife will most definitely testify to evidence of domestic violence and that she communicated same to paramour. (makes fear reasonable)
Unarmed people still can be dangerous and people can reasonably fear imminent bodily harm from someone who has no weapon.
The available evidence other than than the fact that paramour killed deceased subject are the types of evidence that lead juries to acquit.
So without the castle doctrine if the paramour has no money they are at the mercy of the system and susceptible to extortion by plea offer. If they have money they have to spend a lot of it to get a good defense counsel and take a case all the way to a jury.
The castle doctrine cuts through all that and forces the State to ignore political pressure, it’s own biases and focus on facts and evidence available.
And before you finish this email thinking I’m a defense attorney think again…I just can’t defend guilty people which is the only way to pay your bills…
I could tell you what I do now, but then I'd have to kill you.
;^)
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.