Way to go, gun nuts:
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.
I mean, after all, when you are sleeping with another man’s wife, you have the right to kill him when he confronts you unarmed. Because America Fuck Yeah. Also too, Ten Commandments.
arguingwithsignposts
Way to stand up for Traditional Marriage(tm) Montana!
BruceFromOhio
At least now they are free to fuck as they like. Wonder how that feels.
Corner Stone
He should have done what, exactly?
Capt. Seaweed
Yeah, as a nation we’re lost. Thru the looking glass…
Scotty
@Corner Stone: Not been banging another guys wife. Obviously.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone: Not shot the man in the first place – among several things.
ETA, like what @Scotty said.
meadrus
I am kind of surprised that the “I am such a giant pussy that I grab my gun every time another man raises his voice at me” defense is palatable to these Manly Americans. Then again, talking the talk while cringing in whiny victimhood has been the default play of the cheating, cowardly right winger for a very long time.
The Dangerman
And why did he have that belief? No, I didn’t click through…
gbear
@BruceFromOhio: Yep, now the wife doesn’t have to make that horrible choice of which man she loves most.
ETA: I am NOT NOT NOT blaming the woman for this.
Trakker
But one must never, EVER harm a fckin’ fetus!
PeakVT
That is a depressing story. I’m going to pretend I didn’t read this post and go back to being outraged over the latest Republican rape comment.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
I’ve said it before: Gun nuts are the World’s Biggest Pussies™. Somebody comes up and farts near them, and they freak out so badly that they need to shoot the flatulizer. What a bunch of weepy, cowering asswipes.
And there’s something else I never understood. Why do so many of these fuckups have to kill their would-be assassins? I mean, this guy, he was, what, ten feet from the “threat”? Maybe fifteen? Surely he didn’t have to shoot the guy three times. And why not just shoot him in the leg? From ten or fifteen feet, even a bozo like me who’s never shot a pistol could hit a guy’s leg rather than his chest. How is this, even with some fucked up “castle” bullshit, not a staggering overreaction?
YellowJournalism
One of the big reasons I hate these laws is that it would be so easy to invite someone you wanted to get rid of over to your house, have them step through an open or unlocked door, shoot, and then claim self defence. Could have happened in this case, even.
Mike in NC
Frank Zappa: “I Might Be Moving To Montana Soon”
? Martin
@The Dangerman:
Because he knew he was fucking the guy’s wife, and the guy was pissed.
arguingwithsignposts
@? Martin: OT, but why does your little martian head show up on my android phone and my ipad, but not my laptop?
Yutsano
@BruceFromOhio: Could be slightly awkward…
AxelFoley
@gbear:
Why not? If she wasn’t opening her legs for another man, her husband would still be alive. She’s as much to blame for this as the asshole who pulled the trigger, IMO.
The Dangerman
@? Martin:
Sure, but if the “assault” was only the guy was pissed, then something is wrong. I’m assuming there was some actual assault or threatened assault involved here (OK, perhaps I’ll click through and find out).
JoyfulA
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): “pussies” are tough, strong, and resilient. “Balls,” on the other hand, are not.
? Martin
@arguingwithsignposts: If you’re running Windows, probably because you don’t have an emoji font installed. If you’re on a Mac, probably because you’re running Firefox or Chrome.
Apple supports emoji by default in iOS and in Safari. Android must as well in the Android browser, or at least on your Android skin.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): No you couldn’t. I thought the same thing before I started shooting.
Never shot a pistol before? Odds are good that you couldn’t hit a guy standing fifteen feet from you at all, anywhere.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): No you couldn’t. I thought the same thing before I started shooting.
Never shot a pistol before? Odds are good that you couldn’t hit a guy standing fifteen feet from you at all, anywhere.
eemom
NFW
muddy
@AxelFoley: That’s just stupid.
Corner Stone
The article indicates the wife was a barista, which wiki tells me has something to do with serving coffee.
Damn that Devil Bean!
arguingwithsignposts
@? Martin: Ah, it’s chrome then.
gbear
@AxelFoley: Just NO. She didn’t go get the gun and shoot her husband. The guy who shot the fucking gun is solely to blame for the husband’s death. Saying she’s partially responsible is like believing the argument that the husband was responsible for his own death by stepping into a garage.
The guy shooting the gun is the only one responsible for the death of the husband.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone: I blame the hipsters. And gangnam style.
Forum Transmitted Disease
Finally, I get the FYWP double post! i feel like I’m part of the family now!
Corner Stone
@Scotty: The article says the wife was not sexually intimate with the homeowner.
Are you calling the 22 year old barista a liar?
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: It always, always, comes back to “Condom Style!”. Doesn’t it?
El Cid
Pssst! Don’t any Democrats respond to invitations to come to a house party in Flathead County! IT’S A TRAP!
ulee
The guy shouldn’t have been screwing the guy’s wife, but when the husband confronted the screwer on the screwer’s property, probably enraged and out for revenge, well then the screwer has gotta do what he’s gotta do. Husband should have ditched the wife and kept his life.
1badbaba3
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): “Why not just shoot him in the leg?” Indeed. Something tells me he was done sharing and caring.
El Cid
By the way, where in the King James Bible (you know, the real one) does the 2nd Amendment fit in the 10 Commandments? Is it just numeric, or does it come first or afterwards because of the A versus the C?
? Martin
@The Dangerman:
That’s a different issue.
“Given his reasonable belief that he was about to be assaulted”
He probably indeed had a reasonable belief he was about to be assaulted. He probably also had a reasonable belief he deserved to be assaulted. He might even have had a reasonable belief that the wife deliberately agitated her husband to provoke such an encounter in the hope that she might be rid of her husband, keep all of his shit, and stay with the neighbor.
The real question is why would Montana law shield this guy with ‘reasonable belief for assault’ being a satisfactory justification given other details.
El Cid
@ulee: Exactly. If anyone ever confronts you in a frightening manner, kill him or her without a second thought, especially if you can do so legally.
Kill anyone who frightens you. It’s the only way we can all truly feel safe. By definition.
Corner Stone
Do any of you fucking morons advocating someone to “just shoot them in the leg” even know what that fucking means?
I’m going to go with “no”.
? Martin
@arguingwithsignposts: There are emoji plugins for Chrome that would show all of those characters.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Well, I guess you’re right. After all, I was kind of speaking out of my ass. But even so, this guy, I’m guessing, had shot one before. He knew his way around a pistol well enoough to hit the other guy three times. If he’s good enough to hit the guy three times, wouldn’t he have been a good enough shot to hit the guy in the leg instead?
El Cid
I think that icepick rights activists need to raise some noise because as of yet there’s not enough public support for the notion that if someone walks into your garage you should more or less get to stab them with an icepick, repeatedly, until they die.
gex
@El Cid: You know who’s always frightening to these asswipes? Brown people.
Scotty
@Corner Stone: I’m sure romantically involved just meant they were winking at each other.
? Martin
@Corner Stone: By the same token you’re arguing it was less effort to walk to your bedroom, grab your gun, walk back to the garage and shoot 3 times rather than to just lock the door and wait for the guy to leave, or call 911.
You choose the gun because you want to choose the gun.
Corner Stone
@Scotty: Maybe they read poetry to each either, sipped Crystal and fed white chocolate covered strawberries with their arms intertwined.
She says they weren’t banging and he’s not saying.
Pen
As I’ve said to every gun nut, never served, scared of their shadows family member I have: supporting shit like this is a sure-fire way to guarantee we get blood feuds going again. I honestly don’t know what I’d do if one of my family was killed by someone like this, but I won’t pretend it would be anything but bad.
ulee
@El Cid: Perhaps the screwer was beyond frightened. Perhaps he believed he was about to get a beatdown to beat all beatdowns. He may have been afraid for his life.
The Dangerman
@? Martin:
Well, that’s the thing; there aren’t any details on what that belief was based on. If it was just the guy being pissed, I don’t think that’s assault or even threatening an assault (IANAL). An apparently important piece of information is missing in the article.
SYG laws are shit (what little I know of them), but I can understand domicile/castle laws IF there was an actual assault (or realistic belief an assault was about to occur).
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
@ulee:
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
@El Cid:
I’m wondering whether we might have found ourselves a new troll here. About time, too. The other ones were getting awfully stale.
ranchandsyrup
How many people in montana are scheming to somehow get their worst enemy to enter their
homecastle?Pen
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): You don’t aim for the leg. You don’t aim for the arm. Hell, you don’t even aim for the head for bonus points. Center mass your target or don’t shoot at all, guns aren’t a damn video game.
El Cid
@ulee: Well, this could be true — best to give blank permission in advance for the shooter to be the one to instantly determine how his feelings intersect with ending this man’s life in a most definite, and not much of a ‘maybe’, fashion. And since we can’t test how someone truly felt, best to extend judgment first and foremost to the motivations of the person who just killed someone.
El Cid
What if I’m imminently and severely afraid that my neighbor’s about to rape me? Can I rape him first?
Corner Stone
@? Martin: I doubt very much I am arguing that Martin.
ulee
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): Christ, anytime someone offers an alternative opinion they’re accused of being a troll. You are trolling for trolls, Zap.
1badbaba3
@Corner Stone: Well, are you going to tell us what it means?
ulee
@El Cid: No, El Cid, you should kill the neighbor. Use your common sense.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
@Corner Stone:
Well, what does it mean, then? I don’t know. It seems to me that if the guy truly did fear for his life, or at least his limbs, and he was good enough to hit the other guy three times, he must have had enough skill to aim somewhere that would be less likely to kill him. And I think that even just wounding the guy is over the top, but at least Dan Fogelberg or whatever his name was, would be alive, even if crippled. So what is your point?
Smedley the Uncertain
@AxelFoley: Agree. beat me to it,
She is complicit!
ArchPundit
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Yep. I went shooting with some friends. We were shooting around a small lake in the mountains. We were aiming at a stump in the water. It really confused them that there wasn’t a splashing sound after I shot.
Best part, I was not the owner of the firearm. While they thought they could protect themselves I understood it just meant the burglar got their expensive stuff and a brand new firearm.
El Cid
@ulee: I don’t get to choose my weapon and method of violence? Aw, this is no fun.
muddy
About 25 years ago my boss gave me some advice. He said if someone was climbing in the window, let him get all the way in before you shoot him. If you shoot him on the sill, he might fall back outside, and then you’d be in trouble. I said that was just silly, they could tell if he fell, it’s not like it would look like you shot him as he was just hanging around in the yard. He scolded me for not taking personal protection seriously enough. psh
I could easily have shot a couple of friends though, over 20 years ago. One night after I went to bed these guys came over and were visiting with my roommate. Roommate had kept telling me I needed a gun at the bedside. I said not, my kid is 7, FFS. But I woke hearing whispering in the hall, “Where’s the light switch?” At that moment I wished I did have the gun, but it would have been unfortunate, because they burst in to scare me, and I would have shot right through the both of them in the doorway. It was the one guy’s birthday, and was April 1. Idiots.
They probably wished they’d been shot after the prolonged tongue lashing.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
@Pen:
Nobody’s saying they’re a video game. But at–and I’m assuming here, but how big are most garages?–fifteen or twenty feet at the most, is it unreasonable that a good shot could shoot not to kill the other guy? Or–and here’s a wild thought!–maybe even not shoot at all, but hold the guy at gunpoint until the police get there. Or use the gun as a threat to stave off his fearsome “attacker” until he could get back in the house and lock the door. Is that so far-fetched?
Pen
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): Please point out the location on the body where you can fire a high energy projectile that will just wound. If you “aim for the leg” you stand a good chance of hitting the femoral artery. If you aim for the arm (or shoulder, as they usually do on tv) you’ve got the brachial artery to contend with. Hit either of those and your target will probably bleed out before help arrives unless you render aid.
Where else do you plan to shoot? The foot? The hand? Good luck. The idea that you can “shoot to wound” is one of the worst things about our Hollywoodized gun culture. If you fire a gun at a person and aren’t skilled enough to hit a target the size of a quarter, moving at 15mph in a randomized evasion pattern, the very most likely outcome is serious injury and or death. If that’s not your goal you have no business firing a gun.
Tonal Crow
Sorry John. If someone comes into my home and gives a strong indication he’s going to batter me (or worse), I’m likely to blow him away, whatever the law says. After all, the joker might well be carrying, given how many jurisdictions have “right to carry” statutes. I’m not going to wait to find out. It’s my home, you know.
Smedley the Uncertain
@Corner Stone: I keep a pair of shotguns for home security. I would be inclined to aim for the crotch; bigger target, very disabling and less likely to be lethal. Using minimal force, don’tcha know,,,
Corner Stone
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): There’s a big freakin’ pipe of blood in your leg. Which kills you in about 20 seconds or less when it’s nicked.
And individuals inside 21 feet are essentially too close to stop if they intend you harm. Good luck hitting a thigh bone of a rapidly moving adult within 21 feet and coming at you.
It’s a good thing you’re a Dentist as you have little understanding of human anatomy.
Pen
@Zapruder: I agree completely. Use the threat of the gun to subdue your target if need be, but once that trigger gets pulled all bets are off. Not shooting them isn’t far fetch, far from it, but we’re talking people who support the Castle Doctrine here. They aren’t exactly running on all cylinders as is.
chuckieboy
@Corner Stone: What I mean is, You aim a weapon at someone’s leg, squeeze the trigger, and VOILA a bullet goes into their leg. MORON
burnspbesq
@The Dangerman:
That. But I would go one step farther. If you’re holding a gun in plain sight, and the other guy is unarmed, how the FUCK is it reasonable for you to fear that you’re about to be assaulted?
The DA fucked up here. Big time. Whoever runs against him next time, I will contribute to his/her campaign.
ETA: I don’t believe for a second that this was self-defense. This was intentional, premeditated murder. Fucker should be going down for life.
Corner Stone
@chuckieboy: Oh. Well, shit. I guess I flubbed that one right the F up then.
John Cole
Hey- Cornerstone- How bout he not shoot the guy at all and take the confrontation like a fucking man? He wasn’t even fucking armed.
You fucking worthless douche.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq: Aren’t you the moron that chastises everyone here to show on the dotted line where any bank or Wall St person has committed a crime?
How about you do the same thing here you fucking hypocrite.
The Dangerman
@burnspbesq:
Did the article say plain sight? I missed it if it did. Yes, if you have that advantage, there can’t be a reasonable fear.
Corner Stone
@John Cole: Hey Cole, you mean he should have fixed the guy pasta?
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
I amended my comment to show my theory of the case. Read it again and tell me how I’m wrong, shit-for-brains.
The world would be a better place if you weren’t in it.
Pen
@chuckieboy: They’re within 20 feet. You fire, hitting either muscle mass, bone, or the artery. In one of those situations they keep coming, the other they go down, and the other they go down and die. Guess which two are the most likely outcome.
Tonal Crow
@chuckieboy:
Except that the leg is in fast, difficult-to-predict motion, is a relatively small target, and hitting some areas of a leg (femoral artery) is likely to be fatal. Better shake yer Etch-a-Sketch and try again.
burnspbesq
@The Dangerman:
It strikes me that it may be somewhat difficult to aim a firearm if it’s not in plain sight.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq: How could it be pre-med when the guy followed him to his own home?
You, sir, are a moron. And a shithouse lawyer by all accounts here.
low-tech cyclist
@Mike in NC:
I think I’m riding my pygmy pony in the opposite direction, as fast as its little legs will carry us!
The Dangerman
@burnspbesq:
OK, we’re talking different things. I was assuming you meant the gun was in plain sight throughout the confrontation.
This goes back to my point that the article doesn’t give you enough information to determine what this “reasonable fear” was.
ulee
@Corner Stone: Cole is a bit angry at screwers. He thinks they should take their punishment.
El Cid
I think the clear lesson here is that you should never be on or anywhere near your next door neighbor’s property, in fact you probably shouldn’t have any next door neighbors, or live in a populated neighborhood where people use the same streets and sidewalks, and no matter what he or she does, to the best of your ability don’t react in any way that might frighten him or her, because then that will just allow him or her to shoot you dead. Because he or she just couldn’t take the chance of whatever they imagine might happen end up happening.
ulee
And I think Lance Armstrong deserves some blame here.
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
I say it’s premeditated because I think Harper lied when he said “he just kept coming.” I think that’s a lie because every gun-toting idiot who lives in a state with a castle-doctrine law knows that that’s exactly what you have to say in order to get away with murder. Harper’s probably been rehearsing that line in the shower ever since he started fucking the victim’s wife.
The mistress can’t hide behind the spousal communications privilege. I would indict, and make them tell their stories under oath and subject to cross-examination. If they can keep their lies straight, he goes home.
I think the DA chickened out because he didn’t want to take the political heat for bringing the case.
You are in no fucking position at all to judge whether I’m good at what I do. It takes an IQ somewhat higher than 12 to do that.
muddy
@Corner Stone: It could be pre-meditated because the wife told the husband about the affair, and the 2 men had gotten into it earlier. The boyfriend calls the wife and asks her to come over and help clean out his house. The husband knows she’s over there, and so he goes over. I don’t know if it was planned or not, but the description sounds as though it certainly could have been. I wonder if he had life insurance?
I should check the laws in my state because this seems like a good way to get rid of people that piss me off. I could taunt them into coming over, and then shoot them. Sweet.
Laen
Yes, shooting to wound is a hollywood game. Anyone who knows more than a little about guns knows this. It takes an extremely high level of skill to even consider shooting “to wound” and you still have very high odds of killing the target. So on the self defense side, you always shoot to kill, because that’s what guns do.
On the legal side even if you could just wound someone, you don’t do it. Dead men tell no tales, much harder to be sued, charged with a crime or anything else if the target is dead versus wounded alive in a hospital.
muddy
@El Cid: Luckily Montana has the least people per square mile of any state.
PJ
We are a nation of terrified, homicidal wussies.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq: Just find it odd that you break balls anytime someone says a corrupt financial act has occurred but here you are randomly inferring a fuckload of evidence not yet entered into evidence.
We have a law, “Castle Doctrine” and so far according to this news report and the attendant prosecuting jurisdiction it has been followed.
But yet you’ve gone out of your way numerous times to put words and deeds into people’s actions et al, to scream about making a murder one case.
All with no facts in evidence.
So, counselor, I can only conclude you’re a flaming fucking hypocrite and a raging bullshit artist.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
@Pen:
Fair enough. But isn’t it at less likely that a leg wound would kill somebody that a chest wound? Look, I’ll own up here and say that I don’t know much about guns. I’ve shot a 22 rifle at wasp nests, but that’s about it. So, no, I don’t really get the whole “shoot to kill or not at all” thing. Why not do your best to only wound him and hope he doesn’t die? O.K., as you say, it’s hard to hit somebody in the leg and not kill him. O.K. But isn’t it still, as I asked above, at least somewhat less likely to kill somebody than a shot to the chest would be?
It seems weird to me that the idea of killing Fogelbrg isn’t a bigger deal. Why, if you don’t know the guy is going to attack you, would you want to kill him? There’s no undoing that, and it’s a real bummer if, as seems to be the case here, the “intruder” really wasn’t much of a threat. Nobody knows that the guy didn’t go over to talk. Sure, maybe he might have said some mean things, and chosen a few naughty words, but is that truly enough of a “threat” to justify killing him? The guy couldn’t have given him a few seconds to tell him what he wanted? “We need to talk about what’s going on between you and my wife,” is a long way from, “I’m going to beat you to death now, asshole!” Now, I know that we don’t know that he didn’t go over to beat Harper to death, but, hey, thanks to Harper, we’ll never know at all.
Or another thing, as a few here have asked, why shoot at all? Why not back slowly into the house, lock the door and call for help? It seems to me, and maybe I’m misunderstanding some of what people are saying, that there’s no real need to at least try not to kill the guy–who, after all, wasn’t in the house; garages that lead into houses have locking doors.
It isn’t too often that a thread here just befuddles the shit out of me, but this one does. I’m kind of amazed that people would assume that the guy was going to attack Harper. After all, while it’s true that he might have meant to do that, it isn’t a sure thing. I can’t speak for anybody else, but I can say that if I found out that a neighbor was having an affair with my wife, I wouldn’t go over to physically hurt the guy. That just isn’t something I have in me. I can’t be the only one, either. It’s hard to understand why it seems such a sure thing that Fogelberg really was a threat.
@Corner Stone:
And for the record, I’m not a dentist; I just play one on Balloon Juice.
Felanius Kootea
@burnspbesq: The wife clearly states that her husband wasn’t moving towards Harper at the time he was shot, so either the wife is lying or Harper is lying. I’m wondering whether the wife told the police/prosecutor the same things she told the New York Times because it makes no sense that Harper wasn’t at least prosecuted given her statement (not saying they would have won the case given the Castle doctrine, because he could still come up with another reason why he was frightened even though the victim wasn’t moving towards him).
Corner Stone
@muddy: Actually, I was fucking the wife and this sad sack was just covering for me.
muddy
@Corner Stone: I think you should do your own shooting, that’s pretty weak to hide behind sad sack. Were you were further inside the house, holding a gun on *him*?
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): Nope, sorry to disillusion you. That shit’s for the movies. I’ve been shooting rifle for 36 years, pistols for 16, and I couldn’t hit a guy in the leg at fifteen feet unless he was nailed to a wall. A human leg is not that large, and it’s moving. A LOT. That’s why cops always do “center mass” shots – because anything else is simply going to miss.
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
so far according to this news report and the attendant prosecuting jurisdiction it has been followed.
False. Read the article carefully next time.
Eyewitness testimony that directly contradicts the defendant’s story. Felanius is correct that we don’t know whether she told the investigators the same thing she told the New York Times, but any responsible DA, after reading the NYT story, would bring her back in for a second interview.
Responsible DAs bring cases all day, every day where the outcome depends on which of two witnesses the jury finds more credible. You win some, you lose some.
The failure to bring this case is inexcusable. It’s a political act.
The Tragically Flip
This is why castle doctrine laws are crazy. You have a moral obligation to avoid killing someone if you can. An angry huband in your garage banging on a locked door is a live angry husband. Fuck you psychopaths who think “he was in my home” is sufficient reason to kill someone.
Corner Stone
@muddy: Boring but true story. In high school I was just casual HS friends with this girl. She had a boyfriend who was fucking crazy. She was also banging on the side a guy I randomly hung out with a few times a month. He was telling the boyfriend that anytime boyfriend couldn’t find the girl it was because she was with me.
So when crazy fucking boyfriend lost his shit one day and came to see me with a metal implement in his hand I wasn’t sure what the fuck he was screaming at me about.
Not that it’s really relevant to this specific story, but I think we should see what else comes out of this story before going all Cole on it.
PurpleGirl
I wonder how long it will be before the story becomes an episode of a series on Investigation Discovery.
whidby
Well, if you’re going to barge into the house of someone who’s fucking your wife, you should probably arm yourself.
muddy
@Forum Transmitted Disease: Well, sure, but even if you missed the leg, I bet he’d quit coming at you. Anyway he wasn’t moving, the wife said he was standing still.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Forum Transmitted Disease: Oh yeah, one more thing. WHEN you miss your Hollywood leg shot, that bullet will go right through every house in it’s path for at least a quarter-mile before it stops. And odds are pretty decent it will stop – inside somebody. Somebody you didn’t mean to shoot.
muddy
And that’s why you should use a shotgun.
muddy
@Corner Stone: Sucks you weren’t inside your house, you could have shot him, the metal implement sounds scary.
Corner Stone
@muddy: Oh, I took it away from him. I’m stronger than I look. And crafty too. Downright fucking crafty.
Corner Stone
We’re putting a lot into the wife’s alleged testimony regarding the shooting. I would caution she’s also the person who insisted she wasn’t fucking the neighbor. And no one called 911 when the irate husband showed up on someone else’s property to talk about their dilemma.
IMO there’s some Megan Fox up in this piece.
muddy
@Corner Stone: Took him out with a glue gun and some glitter, did you?
Forum Transmitted Disease
High schools really need to bring back basic gun handling and marksmanship classes, because there’s a few posters here who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about and are going to kill themselves or some innocent bystander if they ever lay their hands on a gun, because they saw an actor in a third-rate crime drama shoot the gun out of the bad guy’s hand. Bet you think you can jump through a plate glass window without ending up in a hospital or dead too.
Seriously, you people fucking scare the shit out of me. “Shoot the leg” “Shoot to wound”. Fuck me, I wouldn’t trust you assholes with a toaster, much less a gun. Go get some competent firearms instruction before you dare open your dumb fucking pieholes again, and when you’ve gotten your instruction and realize what a turbo-level dumbfuck your were, come back and apologize for making the world a stupider place.
Fuck.
Corner Stone
@muddy: Yarn. Lots and lots of yarn. And some of those stick on googly eyes.
El Cid
What about mines? Mines would be useful in guarding one’s castle.
muddy
It’s not a gang war, it’s one unarmed man coming into another armed guy’s garage. Why would you *try* to kill him? I mean you could attempt to wound him, and if he died anyway, at least you tried. I’m thinking if someone shot at my feet, even if they missed, I wouldn’t be pressing forward. Or if he fired a warning shot into the ceiling or something.
This stuff about shooting to kill is for when you *need* to shoot to kill. I just don’t perceive the *need* in this circumstance.
I’ve been shooting targets, skeet and game since 30 years ago. I’m a good shot even with a BB gun. Then again my first instructor said that I was “a natural” because I don’t visually aim, I just point and intend. Aiming brain apparently working better on autopilot.
Pen
@El Cid: you know what else would help guard a castle? Sharks with friggin lasers. Just sayin.
muddy
@Corner Stone: Oh, the googly eyes, I love those! If you get loaded it’s pretty funny to put them on the dog’s butt. Especially the ones with the docked tails.
El Cid
@Forum Transmitted Disease: In their defense, they’re at least attempting to come up with ways to avoid shooting someone dead. Ineffective suggestions, sure, wrought with their own dangers, but the broad context is a politico-legal one in which there exist laws and beyond that an increasingly belligerent ideology wherein people, particularly people favored by the right wing’s shifting cultural, get to choose to kill people in situations where deadly force appears wildly inappropriate — and certainly not as a general rule. I don’t think they’re seriously suggesting a home-protection regime based upon winging attackers.
El Cid
@muddy:
When is there not such a need? Why limit ourselves to situations of stark survival when killing someone might be available in a much more intriguing range of situations? I mean, how often do you get to kill somebody? If the chance presents itself, are you just going to let that opportunity to employ that firearm in actual enemy engagement pass by? Let’s hope not.
Corner Stone
@El Cid: It’s against Castle to set traps to intend harm, and you can’t invoke that defense if you wound or kill someone on your property with a set trap or device.
muddy
@El Cid: The rule in my house is, you shoot it you eat it. It’d be really gross to shoot a human in that case. Even if the killing part seems kind of cool.
Mandalay
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Er….YOU really seem like someone who should never be allowed anywhere near a gun.
So much mindless anger in your creepy meltdown.
muddy
@Corner Stone: But what if the boyfriend waiting in the garage *was* the trap? I’m with you, btw, in suspicions of the wife.
Laen
Please understand this. If you shoot a rifle or pistol at someone, especially at close range, you are shooting to kill. Get the whole concept of shooting to wound out of your head. If you shoot someone with anything over maybe a .22, you are shooting to kill. If you only wound them they have got extremely lucky.
As to the shotgun comments, unless you are shooting bird shot and most likely even then, you are still shooting to kill. You put a 00 buckshot in someone’s leg, assuming once again you somehow have the skill, at 15 feet and it’s a kill shot. You will hit a major artery/vein, they will bleed out in under 3 minutes. Anything else is pure luck. Shotguns are good for self defense because they don’t tend to penetrate walls making hitting an unintentional target less likely. It doesn’t make you any less likely to kill what you are shooting at unless you purposely go for less than lethal rounds. Which by the way can still kill people.
pseudonymous in nc
Hitchcock films would have been a lot more dull if Shoot-The-Cuckold had been in force everywhere back in the 1950s.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Mandalay: Creepy? Possibly. Meltdown? Guilty. But mindless? Not hardly. Guns aren’t like videogames, or movies, or toys, but there are a bunch of morons on this thread who think they are, and it’s those people who think that you can shoot to wound, or use less-lethals at ten feet, or threaten someone with a gun into doing your will, that get people killed. These people and their blithe ignorance of the sheer killing power of firearms enrage me. This story of what’s looking like premeditated murder encouraged by the law enrages me. That private gun ownership, given the decades of dead bodies piling up as the price for the privilege, is still legal not only enrages me but is frankly beyond my comprehension. Of course I’m angry. If you had any experience with firearms, you’d know exactly how stupid these people are being, and you’d be incoherent with rage too.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Jesus Christ, what’s your problem, dude? Seriously. I said I don’t know anything about shooting pistols, and guess what, asshole, that’s why I don’t own one. I’m not going to go off shooting people like I’m in the movies. I was giving my admittedly limited opinion and asking some stuff. So were the others who were writing things along the lines of what I wrote. There’s no need to shit all over me or anybody else because we’re wrong about something.
I bet there are things I know more about than you do, but if any of them ever came up in a thread and you said something that you thought was true that turned out not to be, or if you asked what I might in my arrogance think were “stupid” questions, I wouldn’t call you a “turbo-level dumbfuck” unless you pig-headedly and against all evidence otherwise kept hammering points that were untrue.
Now, for the record, I won’t gainsay that I am indeed a turbo-level dumbfuck. But I don’t see how that is any call to fling all that shit my way. Also for the record, I’m not calling for anybody to ban you or shut you up. I am saying that your screed was nasty and needless and uncalled for, and that if your aim is to convince anybody that what you believe is true–and I am acknowledging that to my limited capacity to judge anything having to do with guns–I believe you know what you’re talking about and that what you say is true, then shit like that undercuts your own position.
It isn’t always enough just to be right. If you’re right but you’re also an asshole, you’ll have a harder time winning people over than you will if you’re dead wrong but respectful of others.
Death Panel Truck
@Mike in NC: Gonna be a mennil toss flycoon.
Ellyn
And freedom. Don’t forget freedom.
brashieel
So… just to throw my two cents into this mess…
The scenario seems incredibly dodgy. Shooting the husband of the woman you’re screwing is… obviously suspicious. And there are conflicting accounts, which makes it even more so. Though who knows what facts the DA reviewed before deciding to drop the whole thing.
That said… shooting to wound is not a thing. Aiming outside the center of mass means you’ll likely miss, and even if you hit you’re basically rolling dice to either kill/achieve nothing/disable the other guy. People are simultaneously crazy tough and rather fragile.
The Original Raven
I wonder how the widow feels about it? I wonder if she feels she can break up with Mr. Harper?
More food for corvids!
TenguPhule
Given Montana’s laughable laws, why not?
Now if the husband had been smart, he’d have simply rigged a carbomb on the guy NTRing him, sat back and laughed at the fireworks.
Mandalay
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
No, I would not be incoherent with rage.
You are gratuitously nasty in your posts, and you have lost all sense of proportion. You are the George Zimmerman of BJ.
You should not be allowed anywhere near a gun if any if the posts in this this thread make you “incoherent with rage”.
Cain
@Trakker:
Out of curiosity if a man shoots a woman who is pregnant on his property would that be justified? Or would gun nut’s minds spontaneously explode? It would be a choice between gun rights and aborting.. wow. what will they do?
Patricia Kayden
@Corner Stone: Did you notice the part in the article where it stated that the husband was UNARMED?
So now it’s okay to shoot an unarmed man when he confronts you about sleeping with his wife? Wow. Just wow.
Mack
As a former policeman and member of the 6th U.S. Army shooting team, and the fact that I have shot a person, I feel somewhat qualified to chime in. Yes, you CAN shoot to wound, but that is somewhat beside the point. Pointing a gun at a human being feels inherently wrong. Add adrenaline to the mix, and hitting what you aim for gets even harder. There isn’t a person alive that wouldn’t freeze at the sound of a shotgun chambering a round. Unless you are dealing with a total madman, it will deter almost everyone. It also buys you time to ESCAPE, which should be the goal in the first place.
Dave
Or maybe the legally drunk man, who thinks you are having an affair with his wife,is a real threat. Maybe the local police who know the deceased, know the shooter, came to the conclusion that it was a justifiable shooting. Of course the Times would never project its cultural biases onto the story. Because we know how trustworthy, remember the build up to the Iraq invasion, the Times is.
Chet
It’s worth pointing out that a guy might fuck your wife, and you might beat the shit out of him, but between the two of you, you’d be the only one guilty of a crime. Adultery isn’t against the law. And “unarmed” isn’t the same as “harmless.” About 200 people a year die from bare-handed assaults.
I can believe that the “Castle doctrine” allowed a guy to set himself up for his own murder. I can also believe that the guy posed a genuine threat to the shooter. The solution, it seems to me, is to not invade another person’s house to start a potentially violent confrontation.
stratplayer
@YellowJournalism:
I agree. I’ve been saying much the same thing since the Trayvon Martin shooting. “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle” laws are an invitation to first-degree murder.
Paul
@burnspbesq:
Amen! The home owner should have held him at gun point and have someone call 911. This was a case of shoot first and ask questions later. I am so fricking glad I live in a civilized state that do not have the castle doctrine or any idiotic SYG laws.
carolus
Ultimately, it’s the goal of the NRA to legalize all gun murders and crimes.
Except by, you know, the browns..
chopper
so this dude left the garage, went to his bedroom and got his gun, came back and shot the guy? and people are actually defending this as self defense?
what kept him from locking the door behind him and calling the cops? oh yeah, the desire to kill the dude whose wife he was shtupping.
Zirgar
Whatever happened to just being a man and taking an ass kicking? Or just using your fists, for crying out loud? I don’t care what the law says, a gun is never an appropriate response to someone who is unarmed.
To me, this is the crux of the whole matter and needs to be fixed: “For criminal trials in which a defendant claims self-defense, the legislation flips the burden of proof, putting the onus on prosecutors to discredit those claims.” Ridiculous.
Chet
Um, the onus is always on prosecutors to disprove the defense. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
I’m not going to defend murder if indeed that’s what happened, but so far the only people saying it did are people who saw the words “guns” and “sex” and just completely lost their shit. Maybe the reason the guy didn’t just “take his beating like a man” is that it represents a pretty gross and erosive entitlement to suggest that people should just assent to being victimized by criminals inside their own home. How about you grow the fuck up and realize that just because you poke it doesn’t mean you own it?
El Cid
The movie “Unforgiven” would have been a lot less dramatic without all the hand-wringing about how wrong it was to shoot a man dead.
Penus
Brice Harper? Should have beaten him to death with a bat and said “Clown home invasion, bro.”
Corner Stone
For anyone interested enough to read the official County attorney’s report. It’s a link to a pdf so it may not come through ok. It’s easy to find on the nets if you choose to:
Oct 9 Report
IMO, the report makes some points more clearly than the NYT article. Shocking.
Rex Everything
NRA types like to portray themselves as tough and macho, but it’s hard to imagine anything more chickenshit than what that wife-stealer did.
Corner Stone
It’s impossible to know the truth of this at this point, but the wife leaves me feeling very strange in her role throughout this.
Restraining order
Chet
Wow, honestly the PDF blows this right open. The husband was abusive and paranoid? False accusations of infidelity are a pretty common control technique for abusers; I think it’s becoming pretty clear that no affair even happened.
So, now put yourself in the situation – a belligerent, abusive drunk trespasses on your property making wild accusations that you’re fucking his wife. You know you can’t prove it and you know that he’s willing to use his fists in anger. You tell him to leave or you’re going to defend yourself with force, you leave and get your gun to prove that you’re serious, and he doesn’t leave – he comes at you in full view of your firearm.
I think at that point you have to assume you’re about to be beaten to death by someone out of his mind on rage and alcohol, something that happens to people hundreds of times a year, and open fire. Unarmed doesn’t mean harmless; this guy visited plenty of harm on his wife with nothing more than his bare hands. But pretty amazing how you all stood up in his defense because it’s impossible for you to believe in a self-defense scenario where a gun actually saved a life.
The Tragically Flip
@Chet:
Or, you know, crazy Castle doctrine laws could be repealed so that people aren’t entitled to resort to deadly force unless it really is absolutely necessary, the way every other sane country handles this.
The fact that this whole case hinges on whether the shooting happened in the shooter’s home is what proves it was not justifiable self defence. He just had to close his garage door and call the police. He was trying to show off that he wasn’t scared to a woman so he got his gun and “stood his ground” when it was completely unnecessary and unwise.
The Tragically Flip
It’s also worth noting that the County Attorney is an elected Republican and no doubt would get a nastygram from the NRA and a likely Tea Party primary challenge for prosecuting someone making ample of use NRA supported free-fire zone laws. Partisan elections for prosecutors is another crazy stupid idea.
Cassidy
@Chet: Because no wife who has been screwing around has ever stated she was being abused, right?
Bulworth
Let’s all be thankful the NRA has not yet demanded legislation requiring that any one wanting to register to vote must present proof of having shot and killed someone in the past year.
Marshall
I give the guy a year to live.
Remember, a main reason we have laws and police and all that is to stop private vigilantism. Take that away, and the private vigilantism returns, and returns quickly.
Corner Stone
@Marshall:
Vigilantes?
Corner Stone
@Patricia Kayden: I’m having trouble finding any comment of mine that indicates what you assert is correct. Could you please link to it, or them?
Thanks
Chet
I think when a crazy abuser trespasses in your home, potentially drunk and making wild accusations and threats, and won’t leave when asked, and comes at you even though you’re holding a gun, it is absolutely necessary to kill him. Someone who can’t be dissuaded by reason is attacking you. On what basis should you conclude that his intention is only to beat you up, and not beat you to death? On what basis should you conclude that even if that is his intention, he has the wherewithal to stop? Are you saying jealous husbands never kill anyone?
Chet
@Cassidy: Yeah, that’s right. Fucking lying sluts, amirite?
Cassidy
@Chet: Really? Grow up. Both situations have been known to happen.
Cmm
I’m a police officer. I never shot a gun or carried before I became one. You do not shoot to,wound. It would be nice if you could but that is a good way to 1) get yourself killed 2) get one of your fellow officers killed or 3) kill someone behind the target when you miss. Police have more restrictions than your basic user of castle doctrine or stand your ground. You only use lethal force if your own life or someone else’s is in imminent danger, in which case it’s you (or someone you are protecting) or them. Center mass is tricky enough to hit and we practice on a calm shooting range with paper targets that turn toward and away from you but are still for the several seconds you have to make the shots. That is totally different from an arena line fueled stressful situation shooting at a moving target who is trying to kill you at the same time. Most trained shooters would be doing well to hit center mass facing that situation for the first time.
Oh and the person who plans to hit someone in the genital region with a shotgun as a less likely to be fatal target? Just shoot him in the chest, it would be kinder. He will die either way but a deliberate gut shot is just cruel. I really hope you aren’t using a shotgun for self defense without any real idea of the damage it can do.
El Cid
@Chet: Or maybe that’s the sort of thing which used to be settled via prosecution and trial, rather than brainless ‘doctrines’ which just as easily permit absolute callous murdering bullshit as they do reasonably justified self-defense.
Cmm
For the record, the original story sounds hinky as hell to me too. I believe a “duty to retreat” if it is an option is very reasonable, and I dont like the way the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws have made it entirely too easy to shoot someone without repercussions.
On the other hand, has the story of the Cobb County, Georgia guy been discussed outside GA? He had hired a handyman who had sone some work. Handyman was mentally unstable and believed the homeowner still owed him money. Guy’s son (a tween or teen I think) called dad at work and said the man was at the house and threatening him. Dad comes home, has his gun, confronts the handyman in the homeowner’s backyard. Handyman pulls a knife and homeowner shoots him, and he dies. GA has both castle and stand your ground laws. The homeowner was 1) confronting a person who was trespassing on his property, 2) armed and 3) threatening him and his son. He’s, he could perhaps have retreated into the house, locked up, called police. But under Georgia law he didn’t have to. Yet he was convicted and sentenced to prison. The homeowner is black, the handyman was white. Coincidence? I think not. There is no way in hell that if the situation was reversed, the white homeowner would be in prison now. That is another big problem with these laws.
The Tragically Flip
@Chet:
All he had to do was close his garage door. Please tell us again why a lethal confrontation was “absolutely” necessary when it was clearly unnecessary.
An angry drunk guy locked out on your lawn or driveway is no longer a situation requring lethal force. Police come, angry drunk guy spends night in jail, everyone gets on with life. How is this not the obviously preferable outcome?
pseudonymous in nc
@Chet:
With that attitude, I think you’re a fucking menace. (Especially if you’re the ‘Chet’ from Pandagon, where you have previous.)
Judicial systems that aren’t in hock to the NRA and bullshit “doctrines” have reasonableness tests for self-defence, not barn doors to permit homicide.
Paul
@Chet:
Really? You couldn’t just shut the door and call 911 like most reasonable people would?
The Tragically Flip
This is germane:
This is why Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws were invented. Responsible Gun Owners have no idea what the legitimate limits of self defence are, so rather than alter their behaviour, just alter those limits.
Cris (without an H)
@eemom:
It’s named for the Flathead (Salish) Indian Nation.
TenguPhule
This may come as a shock to many people, but it still is in fact a crime in many parts of the USA.
Unholy Moses
“Really? You couldn’t just shut the door and call 911 like most reasonable people would?”
Of course not!
Instead, you’d be so afraid of your life that you would TURN YOUR BACK AND LEAVE THE GUY IN YOUR GARAGE, go back to your bedroom, grab your gun, make sure it’s loaded and the safety is off, then head back to the garage to shoot the guy.
Because, ya know, that’s a LOT easier than, say, just locking the goddamn door as you walk away and calling 911.
Yep. Totes easier.
Chet
I don’t see how that would defuse the situation. Most people have some pretty dangerous shit in their garages, and leaving someone in there who wants to kill you just means you’ve given them about 50 different ways to let themselves out and do it. And in the meantime, you’re potentially looking at a prosecution for false imprisonment. There’s a good reason for private citizens to be able to defend themselves with force. There’s no good reason that private citizens should be allowed to imprison each other.
Chet
I am that Chet, but if you know me from Pandagon you’ll remember that I’m not a gun owner. I’m just someone who thinks that criminals should be the ones who bear the risks of their crimes.
Jane Doe MT
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
Jane Doe MT
And they were NOT neighbors. Our family has no idea (and probably will never know for sure) how Danny knew where Brice lived.
KeepCastleDoctrine
What this and many other stories aren’t reporting is the wife in the Montana case has made statements backing up the shooter’s account of self defense. She can’t back up his defense then play victim. FACT IS: If she would have been at home and not driving around with her lover when her husband found her, the husband wouldn’t have been at the shooter’s house. FACT IS: If she would have been faithful or moved out or divorced from the husband, he would be alive. FACT IS: Being unarmed doesn’t mean you still can’t be a viable threat. People have been beaten to death with a fist, choked, blunt force trauma… Any number of things. The wife even said she thought her husband would have killed the shooter if he would have reached him. These are FACTS. I’m sick of people blaming a law in this case when the wife and her lover are the guilty parties.
The “Castle Doctrine” law didn’t kill Dan Fredenberg. His wive’s choices and her lovers actions did.
http://www.facebook.com/KeepTheCastleDoctrineLaw
Montnative
@burnspbesq: So I know the DA and the only reason he did not prosicute was that fact that no laws were broken. I may not agree with the course of action the shooter took but the law clearly states that you are allowed to use deadly force on your property to protect you or your property. And as for all of you saying shoot him in the leg or arm
A. Trying to hit a moving target with a pistol is extremely difficult and if you don’t have any shooting exsperiance it’s improbable you will hit your target.
B. I have seen a man take three to the chest and keep coming till he was subdued(that guy survived his wounds)
Unless any of you have exsperiance in this or know the laws you should lay off.
But I do agree he should not have shot him
Montnative
Oh ya and two more things,
1. Dan was drunk when he showed up at Brice’s house and as some have stated Heather (the wife) backs up the self defense story.
2. This is kinda beside the point but it’s an error many articals have gotten wrong. They were not neighbors and until that night Dan didnt know where Brice lived. No body knows how he got the address but it takes all of 4 minutes to google someone am get all there info.
Montnative
@Chet:
I dated the wife when we were in high school and let’s just say she was not/is not the most faithfull ask any of the other 7 guys she cheated on
Jane Doe MT
The barista passed a lie detector test with flying colors.
Jane Doe MT
Dan Fredenberg did NOT know that Brice Harper had a gun. After going inside the home to retrieve the gun, Brice stood in the open door of his laundry room inside the OPEN garage door and just waited for Dan to walk in. During the investigation it was revealed that Brice told several people that he had a gun, wasn’t afraid of Dan and intended to use it. No one took him seriously. So if someone is mouthing off that they are going to kill someone and they do, in Montana it isn’t premeditated it is ‘self defense’. https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForDanFredenberg
KeepCastleDoctrine
janedoemt:Dan Fredenberg did NOT know that Brice Harper had a gun. After going inside the home to retrieve the gun, Brice stood in the open door of his laundry room inside the OPEN garage door and just waited for Dan to walk in. During the investigation it was revealed that Brice told several people that he had a gun, wasn’t afraid of Dan and intended to use it. No one took him seriously. So if someone is mouthing off that they are going to kill someone and they do, in Montana it isn’t premeditated it is ‘self defense’.
My Response: It doesn’t matter if Dan knew or not. You can’t reasonably sit there and say Dan didn’t know when Brice has said it many times about having guns and knowing how to use them. You really want to talk about “during the investigation”??? Ok, during the investigation, Heather couldn’t keep her story straight… and let’s not forget, during the investigation, Heather (Dan’s wife) said glorious things about Brice (the shooter, her lover) and sang his praises – “Brice was a responsible person and that he treated me so good, his values are so good, he would never put his hands on a woman.” – Heather Fredenberg (Dan’s wife speaking about the man she had an affair with, Brice Harper, who is also the man who killed her husband.)… Oh and she corroborated Brice’s story of self defense by saying if Dan had got to Brice he (Dan) might have killed him (Brice).
So tell me, DURING THE INVESTIGATION: Who’s side is Heather truly on???
Corner Stone
@Jane Doe MT:
Testifying to what, exactly?
Corner Stone
@Jane Doe MT:
You were drinking with Mr. Fredenberg just prior to this incident? In the car with him as he arrived at Harper’s house?
How do you know what Mr. Fredenberg did or did not know?
Chet
Yeah, her assumed sluttiness just isn’t probative, here. The fact remains that it’s not against the law to be a slut or bang another guy’s wife like a drum. The fact remains that abusers always invent such accusations as a justification for further abuse, and out of paranoia. The fact remains – it’s not illegal to defend yourself with lethal force, but it’s very much an illegal provocation to show up at a guy’s house and beat him to death, and trapping the guy in your garage with about a dozen weapons and dangerous flammable chemicals isn’t a safe way to defuse the situation.
If you don’t want to get shot, don’t show up at another guy’s house to beat him to death. It seems pretty simple to me. Violent confrontation wasn’t the only way to handle a potential cheating spouse situation, even if she was the Slut of the Year, which there’s no evidence of.