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. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    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.

    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?

     

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

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    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?

     



    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:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    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?

     



    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.



    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. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    Nothing in the story says the victim had any sort of weapon, no bat, knife etc.

    It doesn't say that the guy showed his gun, warned him to leave or any other action that would indicate it was not his intent to harm the guy from the outset.

    So basically the guy gunned down an unarmed man but because it was on his property he gets a pass.

    Kinda hard to feel threatened when a person approaches you while you're holding a gun.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    It's about the "right to defend ones self and home"

     


    No. It is not about some general right to defend oneself and home.

     

    It is about the specific right to use deadly force to kill people who are on one's property without permission, which the homeowner can always say he thought might attack him. Some think that's taking self-defense and home-defense a bit far.



    Right, deadly force to defend ones self or home. If someone is in my home who doesn't belong there my assumption is that they might attack me if caught. I suppose I should wait to see what their intentions are? Of course by then I could be dead. 

    Here's an idea...want to stay alive? Don't be going into other people's homes. Seems like a pretty straight-forward approach to me.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    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?

     



    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.



    You have quite an active imagination. Stop watching Law & Order so much.

     

     
  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. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Many jurisdictions have some form of a castle rule that says at least you aren't expected to retreat if you're in your own home. But they also require the defendant to convince a jury that they feared either serious bodily harm or death before they themselves use deadly force.

     



    Ok, but to be honest I don't want to have to put my life in the hands of a jury.

    It's in the middle of the night. I hear a noise that someone is in my home. I've woken up out of a sound sleep and it's pitch black. How am I to know if the intruder has a weapon or not? Adrenaline is spiking like crazy, fearing for my life and my families life I could have a split second to react and I end up killing the guy. It's me and my familiy or him. Turns out he had no weapon. So now I could possibly go to jail all for trying to defend my life and my families life?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    You have quite an active imagination. Stop watching Law & Order so much.



    Seems like you are incapable of following the logical progression of events.

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    You have quite an active imagination. Stop watching Law & Order so much.

     



    Seems like you are incapable of following the logical progression of events.

     

     

     



    Seems you're confused.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    Ok, but to be honest I don't want to have to put my life in the hands of a jury. It's in the middle of the night. I hear a noise that someone is in my home. I've woken up out of a sound sleep and it's pitch black. How am I to know if the intruder has a weapon or not? Adrenaline is spiking like crazy, fearing for my life and my families life I could have a split second to react and I end up killing the guy. It's me and my familiy or him. Turns out he had no weapon. So now I could possibly go to jail all for trying to defend my life and my families life?



    But your peers would be on the jury, and if those were the facts they'd probably agree with you and acquit. I've seen it happen in rather similar cases.

     

    We obviously differ. I think in the end I would prefer a jury hear it, then for people to have a virtually unlimited license to gun down anyone who happens upon their property. To me, that's an antiquated view best suited for frontier life, not suburban life.

    I don't want to see this case not even go to a jury. I don't want to see drunk teenagers getting shot dead because they tried to enter the wrong home, even if it's entirely their fault they got so drunk they couldn't tell what their house looked like. Etc.



    I hear you. One would hope that a jury would see it your way but it's no guarantee. On the other hand I see your point about no accountability with this law

     
  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. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Self-Defense?

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    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.



    It was at night. Do you know that Harper knew he connected with the first shot? Most people miss even at close range. That isn't opinion that's a fact. Did Harper say he knew for a fact that Fredenberg wasn't armed? I didn't see anything in the article that says so.

     
Sections
Shortcuts