Self-Defense?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Self-Defense?

    Unarmed and Gunned Down by Homeowner in His ‘Castle’

    KALISPELL, Mont. — The last mistake Dan Fredenberg made was getting killed in another man’s garage.

    It was Sept. 22, and Mr. Fredenberg, 40, was upset. He strode up the driveway of a quiet subdivision here to confront Brice Harper, a 24-year-old romantically involved with Mr. Fredenberg’s young wife. But as he walked through Mr. Harper’s open garage door, Mr. Fredenberg was doing more than stepping uninvited onto someone else’s property. He was unwittingly walking onto a legal landscape reshaped by laws that have given homeowners new leeway to use force inside their own homes.

    Proponents say the laws strengthen people’s right to defend their homes. To others, they are a license to kill.

    That night, in a doorway at the back of his garage, Mr. Harper aimed a gun at the unarmed Mr. Fredenberg, fired and struck him three times. Mr. Fredenberg crumpled to the garage floor, a few feet from Mr. Harper. He was dead before morning.

    Had Mr. Fredenberg been shot on the street or sidewalk, the legal outcome might have been different. But on Oct. 9, the Flathead County attorney decided not to prosecute, saying that Montana’s “castle doctrine” law, which maintains that a man’s home is his castle, protected Mr. Harper’s rights to vigorously defend himself there. The county attorney determined that Mr. Harper had the right to fetch his gun from his bedroom, confront Mr. Fredenberg in the garage and, fearing for his safety, shoot him.

    “Given his reasonable belief that he was about to be assaulted, Brice’s use of deadly force against Dan was justified” under current Montana law, Ed Corrigan, the county attorney, wrote in a four-page letter explaining his decision to the Kalispell police.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/castle-law-at-issue-after-fatal-montana-shooting.html?pagewanted=1&hp

    ---

    Our country has gone mad with gun rights.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First off it's sad that this person was killed. Someone dying like this is a tragedy. That being said...
    This has nothing to do with gun rights. It's about the "right to defend ones self and home". Is a gun the only way to defend oneself? I have a louisville slugger for that as I don't own a gun. 

    Further...Fredenberg had to have been aware of the laws. Why would you go onto someone else's property....especially that of the person who is banging your wife? Not really a stretch to think Fredenberg was there to do harm to Harper. Wouldn't you want to get the guy who's banging your wife?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Seems like it opens to the door to allowing a person to invite someone to their home, and once there they can execute them and claim they felt threatened.  The prosecution would have to prove otherwise without anything to work with.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First off it's sad that this person was killed. Someone dying like this is a tragedy. That being said...
    This has nothing to do with gun rights. It's about the "right to defend ones self and home". Is a gun the only way to defend oneself? I have a louisville slugger for that as I don't own a gun. 

    Further...Fredenberg had to have been aware of the laws. Why would you go onto someone else's property....especially that of the person who is banging your wife? Not really a stretch to think Fredenberg was there to do harm to Harper. Wouldn't you want to get the guy who's banging your wife?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Seems like it opens to the door to allowing a person to invite someone to their home, and once there they can execute them and claim they felt threatened.  The prosecution would have to prove otherwise without anything to work with.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the general perspective that you can invite someone into your house and kill them, claim self defense and hnot have to back it up is problematic.  Police investigate these things.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    These 'Castle Doctrines' have wingnut written all over them.  Boilerplate laws written by the American Legislative Exchange Council, sponsored in wingnut states by wingnut representatives, and endorsed by the NRA.

     

     

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    Whether it was a reasonable use of force in the circumstances is a matter best left to a jury.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In some cases, the law itself is not the problem...

    ...the way the law is enforced certainly CAN be.

     

    In a "castle" case down south (GA, I believe), a black man was convicted of murder while on his own land, defending his son from an obviously disgruntled intruder.  Subsequent appeals have been denied, last I heard.

    "...paved with good intentions..." and all that.

    One might just as well make adultery illegal.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    Wouldn't the 2nd and 3rd shot be unnecessary to defend himself?  Shoot the guy once, sure.  But 2 more times?  How is a guy that's unarmed and shot still a threat?

    Shooting an unarmed guy once is defending yourself.  Shooting him over and over again seems criminal.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     

Share