I read about laws, and I usually understand when people have different opinions from me. Other times, however, I just don’t get it.
Take Montana’s Castle Law, for example. Brice Harper is emotionally cheating with Dan Fredenberg’s young wife Heather. The two men have had words before, and everyone acknowledges that the Fredenberg marriage isn’t perfect. One day, Heather spends the day at Harper’s house at Harper’s invitation, and then they go riding in her car to try to figure out why it’s making funny sounds. They see Dan following them, so Heather tells Brice to go inside and lock the doors.
Instead of locking the doors and calling the police like a normal person would, Brice decides he’s going to use his gun instead. So when Dan approaches the door in the garage, he points the gun at Dan and puts three bullets into him.
The Montana Castle Law says that you only have to reasonably believe you’re going to be assaulted, and so they don’t even bother hearing the case. It’s an open and shut case for them. Brice says that Dan was charging him, but Heather, who watched her husband getting shot dead, says that Dan was standing still when he was killed. Because it took place in a garage (which is considered a person’s “castle”), they simply chalk it up to self-defense.
“It changed things here in Montana,” said Leo Gallagher, president of the Montana County Attorneys Association, which joined associations of sheriffs and police chiefs to oppose the law. “For any sort of personal affront, you’re permitted to threaten the person with a gun.”
What’s asinine about this case is that Dan followed Brice into the garage. He didn’t bang on the door, try to knock it down, or anything like that. He just happened to walk into an open garage to confront Brice. Yes, Dan was drunk, but drinking isn’t against the law. From the fact that Brice didn’t call the police, it’s probable that Brice even lured him in. I just can’t believe it’s that easy to murder someone like that. I mean, really, it sounds like Brice could’ve even invited Dan inside, shot him dead, and then said that he really emotionally felt like he was in danger to avoid trial. This man was cheating with another man’s wife, and he literally got away with murdering the husband of his crush.
It’s sickening. When are we going to stop the NRA and all these gun lobby groups from making our laws?
Once happy family: Danny Fredenberg (right), seen here with his wife (center right) Heather and their twins, was killed by the man Heather was having an affair with
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The opposite would be like a situation they have in the UK, where the status of the law de facto does not permit you to defend yourself effectively against any sort of crime. You have to be a victim and play the numbers game.
If anybody has been in a situation where they have had to deal with rampant crime and lawlessness, I think they would know that physical barriers, lethal deterrence and “safe areas” are paramount to not becoming another statistic and becoming a victim, provided these are considered in toto with other relevant contexts.
It is possible that people think that just by having a firearm, they will be safe. This is not true, you have to look at the totality of the situation, you have to look at the environment and also one’s own personal habits. The truth is many people are oblivious to danger simply because they can afford to be. They are not aware of their surroundings nor how their routines can be surveilled and attacked. It’s no use having a gun if you can’t reach it. No use keeping a gun in a trophy case if you are a candidate for a carjacking.
A repeal of the Castle doctrine will affect rural populations more. The isolated nature of rural communities means that police response times will be very slow, and crimes possibly even undiscovered, thereby greatly increasing the risk of torture, murder and other physical violence by criminals who feel no pressure to leave.
If you don’t want to be shot in a man’s home, then stay off his property.
if you don’t want your husband shot, don’t start hanging out w/ some other dude w/ a gun.
sickening…. But I’m not sure if the law’s at fault in this one.
Linda/Rag:
It’s not the idea of being able to protect your castle that I’m against, it’s the fact that this law seems to supersede any kind of other circumstances. In this case, from Heather’s account at least, it was premeditated. She told him to go inside and lock the doors, and he decided to get his gun instead, when he was the one who was clearly in the wrong in the first place.
Let’s start with what Rag said. I think Rag’s interpretation of the law seems to be correct:
So I think a law should reflect the culture of the people it governs. If we lived in a society where it was considered wrong to enter a man’s home for any reason, then I agree that this should be the law.
But that’s not the case in this country. In this country, it’s common for people to have other people at their home. It’s probably common in Montana too, as evidenced by the fact that Heather spent the day at Brice’s house.
Here’s a hypothetical. Let’s say Dan’s two kids grow up with a single mom–it seems she’s no longer interested in Brice, since she filed a restraining order against him (which was ultimately revoked). Now let’s say the kids are bitter about seeing this man have an affair with their mom before murdering their dad.
Under the way this law was interpreted, the children, once grown up, could invite him into their home. If Brice Harper is a drywall contractor or home inspector or some other job where he travels to people’s homes, they could call for a quote. Once he’s in their home, they can shout at him, “You killed our father, you dirtbag!” Now that they’ve identified him as their enemy and he has heard them, they now have reasonable justification to believe that he might cause them physical harm. So now they have a right to shoot him dead.
Is this really what the law should be? Shouldn’t other factors be taken into account?
Legal dissection here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/24/montana-man-cleared-by-castle-doctrine-law-after-shooting-unarmed-husband-who-confronted-him-about-an-affair-with-his-wife/
this case is a grey area for sure but should not be used as a referendum on gun rights.
I or anybody else should be able to defend themselves. It is a basic human right.
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. https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForDanFredenberg
I can’t stand this law. Yes, you should protect yourself but I doubt many situations would lead to deadly force being taken. Lock your doors and the phone the police. Having a gun in your hands gives you more of an upper hand, authority and sometimes (especially if you are not use to it) sudden authority can get someone’s head.
Did anyone here about the Florida? man who shot is neighbor while on the phone with the police? Well I’ll give you a recap. Neighbor throws loud party. Man gets upset. Man calls the police and gets his gun and walks over to the neighbor’s house. Man says to the operator as he tries to confront his party group, “I’m scared for my life.” Operator says “Don’t do anything just wait for the police.” Man doesn’t go back into his house just repeats his line “I’m scared for my life. I have a right to defend myself.” Shots fired. Two men dead. His defense: Castle doctrine.
Really? You couldn’t just walk your ass back home and wait for the police to show? See what’s wrong with this picture? The man was not on his own property but most importantly he escalated the situation and thus the aggressor.
If you listen to the video you’ll get the feeling that this dude had it out for neighbor for a while.
Everyone wants a quick resolution and talking, waiting for the police, holding off on assumptions is clearly too difficult nowadays (I wonder why; fast pace tech culture, shorter fuses then the last generation?). And I’m someone who is down for ‘street justice.’ Example, woman gets robbed and few men grab the culprit and ONE person (it still has to be fair
) deals out a punch…well that’ll teach ‘um. “Don’t steal, you might get hurt.”
@bww – if the hypothetical kids grew up and killed their father’s killer – so be it. He shouldn’t have had an affair w/ a married woman in the first place or murdered someone who wasn’t armed…so one less bad apple in the world. Let them all kill each other.
I don’t think changing laws will prevent ppl from doing some heinous things. And Karma will eventually give everyone their due justice, not our laws.
now – we should have a nanny law b/c kids shouldn’t be murdered. this broke my heart.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/two_infants_found_stabbed_to_death_NjcV3038uqFzJAyJLGOGKK
Jane Doe MT:
I joined your page. I hope Dan gets justice.
Linda,
Well, you’ve always been consistent.
But seriously, I agree with you that changing the laws wouldn’t prevent Brice from murdering Dan. I just think that the law (if that really is the law) should be changed so that Dan can get justice. As the woman in the Fox New video above says (and I agree), there was probably even some baiting going on.
Anna:
Exactly!
Same deal with this Montana case. It’s like, “Dude, you’re emotionally cheating with his wife. You don’t understand why he might be angry? You can’t just close the garage door and wait for the police?”
To me, you just shouldn’t pull a gun if you don’t intend to use it. And you should never intend to use it if there’s another solution. The law should require a gun to be a last resort or a backup. I’d have no problem if Brice locked his doors, called the police, and then just held on to his gun just in case. But instead, he went inside, got his gun, and then opened the door leading to the garage. He was looking to kill Dan.
Wow, that is one crazy story. Thank god I don’t live in these shitty states. The shooter won’t live long. Just wait for 20 years when Fredenberg’s twin son learn of their father death.
this guy was no saint. he has a long record of drug and abuse. heather is no saint and never has . sorry situation but a law should not be changed because a guys wife is out whoring around and he try to settle it and ends up getting shot.. 21 and 40 year old guy kinda sick.
I’ve probably said it here before… but the rest of the Western world thinks Americans are a bit crazy with their love of guns. Here is only one more example.
Everyone is being misled. The “castle doctrine” law and the “stand your ground” law has never been applied to this case. The case has to go to trial before those laws can even be raised as Brice Harper’s defense. The “crazy” aspect of this story is that the county attorney and police chief are doing things they can’t do. The police chief was obligated to arrest Brice Harper for the homicide. It was the county attorney’s obligation to charge Brice Harper with deliberate homicide – and to then prosecute the case to the full extent of the law. They shouldn’t be coming up with a defense case for the defense attorney or deciding the case for the jury.
I’m not sure why people are debating guns and laws regarding this case. If this law was allowing people to knock off their neighbors just because they have the “right” to, then you would have a headline. I’m glad the law is in place, even though I don’t own a gun. If I was standing in my doorway and had a man in a drunken rage, threaten and charge within 2 feet of me, (people that is close enough to count fillings in someone’s teeth) I’m glad to know that I am allowed to defend myself.
Some say, why didn’t he run and hide? I don’t know very many men who would run and hide, with or without a gun….I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m just saying most men will stand their ground. But, why aren’t people equally asking, why didn’t the other man just stay home? He was driving drunk, illegal, he entered someone else’s property with intent to do bodily harm, illegal….
That being said…this is a sad tragedy…but there is plenty of guilt for the three people involved. Mr. Fredenburg acted stupid and paid with his life, Mr. Harper reacted, at the very least rash, and even without a trial, will pay for the rest of his life…Mrs. Fredenburg will try to justify her actions, restraining orders, interviews…whatever, but ultimately will have to raise children without their father… I would think that quilt would be almost unbearable. Everyone has to pay for their actions, but this isn’t about guns, and it isn’t about the law…it is about 3 people who made terrible decisions with tragic consequences, but questioning laws affects the rights of all.
@ zim
“Some say, why didn’t he run and hide? I don’t know very many men who would run and hide, with or without a gun….I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m just saying most men will stand their ground.”
That’s part of the problem. Many of us men are too caught up in macho bullshit to realise that sometimes the best solution to a problem is to avoid it and let it blow over.
The fact that a gun is involved just makes it worse. Even though I just said avoiding trouble is the best policy, I can also understand that sometimes you have to stand your ground. But standing your ground doesn’t mean trying to shoot people. Did he do anything to try and defuse the situation?
The decision to act violently – particularly with a deadly weapon – must be an act of last resort. Harper treated it as a first resort.
@ES
“I’ve probably said it here before… but the rest of the Western world thinks Americans are a bit crazy with their love of guns. Here is only one more example.”
You may want to re-think that statement. While not as high as the States, a large number of European countries (you know, part of the ‘western world’) have quite high civilian ownerships.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
Whereas the majority of Eastern Asian countries had extreme low numbers of civilian ownership, so…I’m not where you get that ‘western world’ but from.
Otherwise I agree with you in relation to guns.
I’m still having trouble understanding the mentality of how everyone owning a gun is safer than everyone without one. Our homocide rate compared to other countries with similar socio-economical levels certainly suggests that more homocides per capita in the States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade
@ N:
It’s not about gun ownership per se. It’s about the attitude towards guns and how they should be used.
Switzerland, for example, is just behind the US in its rate of gun ownership. But I doubt that have laws in place that allow you to shoot anyone who looks at you the wrong way, which is pretty much where some parts of the US are at.
@ES
I agree that with you about the States, but what I want to emphasize is gun culture in europe is still considered to be quite bad when compared to the more well-off Asians countries. Whereas the States are extra crazy.
A better Stat is Homicide by Firearm rate per 100,000 pop.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Where Switzerland at 0.77 is extremely high compared to Japan, South Korea and Singapore with 0.01, o.03 and 0.02 respectively. We are just off-the-charts crazy (2.98).
And I’ll definitely prefer that 0.01 figure over that 2.98 figure.
First, please realize this whole debate is – - “what if” the county attorney is right about what a Montana jury MIGHT decide.
In fact, a jury has NOT decided the Fredenberg shooting was justified – - under any law. And from the Fox news clip & the blogs it seems the county attorney is wrong. Everyone clearly believes that would be an outrageous decision in this case. It seems the crystal ball, ouija board, or whatever other occult force the county attorney is using to tell him what a jury would decide – is on the fritz. Perhaps the county attorney should resign & go elsewhere to pursue his fantasy of omnipresence (being godlike).
Raguel , you say: “If you don’t want to be shot in a man’s home, then stay off his property.” Well, on that note …. someone on another site wisely noted that would play havoc with the Saturday night poker games. The guys, each week, would first need to get a signed invitation faxed to each of their attorneys.
LOL!
They better do fax that signed invitation if they’ve ever had a history of severe rancor with one another XD
Clearly the county attorney has more information on this case than what Fox and the blogs are reporting. Why should tax payer dollars be spent on this case if he feels the evidence does not support pursuing charges? If the family wants to continue with a trial can’t they look into civil charges? Obviously the restraining order Mrs Fredenburg tried to get didn’t hold water- that was a completely independent judge who ruled on the facts he had before him…- meaning Mr. Harper did not pose a threat to her or her children, by her own admission, until this starting getting so much attention- one would think that the officials making these decisions are intelligent, informed professionals who look at cases on an individual basis…
so no, not everyone believes this was an outrageous decision….
Leaving things to “informed professionals” and placing complete, blind trust in them sure is a hell of a great way to get fucked in the ass!