German exchange student killed in Montana by home owner.

[lotus503]

I remember a similar type thread a year or so ago, where Humble argued incorrect assumptions with DC.

The irony of the name and the inability to admit when wrong provides me a lot of laughter though.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

LOL for your own good. Throwing out insults is the hall mark of a loser.

Again, this case still disproves it.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/ka...cle_6eaddc92-126f-11e2-9cf4-001a4bcf887a.html

One man was cheating on another man's wife. Other man finds out and decides to confront the cheater. He walks into the cheaters garage and was walking in broad daylight at the cheater. No weapon in hand. No punches thrown. No kicks thrown. No threats of violence made. Just walking straight at the cheater with an angry face. The home owner legally shot and killed the intruder in his garage. The mere entry of the intruder into the garage was enough to allow for reasonable belief the intruder may have been there to cause harm. For as far as the shooter knows, the guy could have only been there to yell at him angrily for cheating on his wife and had not intended to assault him by your standards.

I will say yet again, entering the garage was not the legal justification for the use of force. From the first article you cited, about this very case:

On Sept. 22, Fredenberg walked into the garage to confront Harper about the alleged romantic relationship with Fredenberg’s younger wife. He was unarmed, but Harper shot Fredenberg three times. The fact that the shooting occurred in the garage rather than a few feet away on the sidewalk made all the difference. The Flathead County attorney Ed Corrigan declared that Montana’s “castle doctrine” law allowed Harper to use lethal force. He found that it was justified for Harper to run into the bedroom and retrieve his gun and return and shoot the unarmed man as self-defense: “Given his reasonable belief that he was about to be assaulted, Brice’s use of deadly force against Dan was justified.”

And from the article in the post I am quoting:

Brice Harper shot and killed 40-year-old Dan Fredenberg on the evening of Saturday, Sept. 22, shooting the man three times with a pistol during a confrontation in the garage of Harper’s Kalispell home. He shot Fredenberg as the man angrily approached him, “charging at him, like he was on a mission,” Harper told Kalispell police.

Fredenberg, according to Harper, entered the garage to confront Harper (not, as in this case, to steal beer from an unoccupied garage), and was charging at Harper. Harper's perception that Fredenberg was going to assault him was the legal justification, not the entry itself.

How can you be this opaque? It's really remarkable to me that anyone could be so proudly, insistently ignorant, yet argue with absolute, unshakable confidence.

Who is it you are trying to convince? Anyone who is reading these posts and agrees with you, please feel free to chime in, but it appears to me you are the only one taking your side.

And as for your claim that "throwing out insults is the hall mark [sic] of a loser," let me quote someone who did that very thing, within the last hour. Who said this again?

You haven't owned me on anything you dumbshit. You are the one continually owned on these forums in every thread you post.

 

[HumblePie]

I will say yet again, entering the garage was not the legal justification for the use of force. From the first article you cited, about this very case:



And from the article in the post I am quoting:



Fredenberg, according to Harper, entered the garage to confront Harper (not, as in this case, to steal beer from an unoccupied garage), and was charging at Harper. Harper's perception that Fredenberg was going to assault him was the legal justification, not the entry itself.

How can you be this opaque? It's really remarkable to me that anyone could be so proudly, insistently ignorant, yet argue with absolute, unshakable confidence.

Who is it you are trying to convince? Anyone who is reading these posts and agrees with you, please feel free to chime in, but it appears to me you are the only one taking your side.

No he was not charging at harper. Harper originally stated that the husband was walking at him. Harper later changed the testimony to state he felt like he was charging.

Husband saw cheater and wife in car and followed them to cheaters home. Cheater has wife go hide in house while he grabbed his gun as husband was pulling up. Garage door was open and cheater was standing in door way from garage into his laundry room.

Husband gets out of car and walks at cheater. No words are said. Husband has no weapons in hand. Has no history of violence. Once entering garage, cheater says, "stop there I have a gun." Husband continues walking at cheater and is shot.

At no point does the husband intentionally display a propensity for violence or to cause it. He could have intended simply to walk past the cheater to get his wife from the house. No words from the husband are said until he he shot at which point the husband yells, "You shot me?" and collapses according to testimony. The cheater stated originally that the husband was only coming at him and changed testimony to that he felt he was charging at him. Although the husband never changed his pace.

There is no indication the husband had any intent to cause physical violence upon the cheater before being shot. Yet the cheater was able to get away with stating he believed the husband was going to do so by merely being there and approaching him. The wife gave testimony on the stand she believed that the husband might have "killed' them had he got his hands on them, but she neither said that to harper at the time of the shot, nor was it relevant.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

No he was not charging at harper. Harper originally stated he was walking at me. Later changed the testimony to state he felt like he was charging.

Husband saw cheater and wife in car and followed them to cheaters home. Cheater has wife go hide in house while he grabbed his gun as husband was pulling up. Garage door was open and cheater was standing in door way from garage into his laundry room.

Husband gets out of car and walks at cheater. No words are said. Husband has no weapons in hand. Has no history of violence. Once entering garage, cheater says, "stop there I have a gun." Husband continues walking at cheater and is shot.

At no point does the husband intentionally display a propensity for violence or to cause it. He could have intended simply to walk past the cheater to get his wife from the house. No words from the husband are said until he he shot at which point the husband yells, "You shot me?" and collapses according to testimony. The cheater stated originally that the husband was only coming at him and changed testimony to that he felt he was charging at him. Although the husband never changed his pace.

There is no indication the husband had any intent to cause physical violence upon the cheater before being shot. Yet the cheater was able to get away with stating he believed the husband was going to do so by merely being there and approaching him.

Where do you get this "evidence"? I assume you made it up, or assumed, because an early article didn't refer to "charging," that the witness didn't claim that until later. Are you saying you have reviewed actual recordings or transcripts of an interview? If you have, link them.

In any case, whether it was "charging" Harper or merely approaching him in an effort to confront him about an affair, Fredenberg entered the dwelling to confront him in some manner. He then did not stop when Harper told him to, and told Fredenberg he had a gun. That conduct, not the entry itself, is what created reasonable fear of assault, and thus gave justification for the use of deadly force, as plainly stated by the county attorney. The entry itself was not the issue. I find it mystifying the way you are, no pun intended, sticking to your guns on this despite the clear language of the statute.

 

[HumblePie]

Where do you get this "evidence"? I assume you made it up, or assumed, because an early article didn't refer to "charging," that the witness didn't claim that until later. Are you saying you have reviewed actual recordings or transcripts of an interview? If you have, link them.

In any case, whether it was "charging" Harper or merely approaching him in an effort to confront him about an affair, Fredenberg entered the dwelling to confront him in some manner. He then did not stop when Harper told him to, and told Fredenberg he had a gun. That conduct, not the entry itself, is what created reasonable fear of assault, and thus gave justification for the use of deadly force, as plainly stated by the county attorney. The entry itself was not the issue. I find it mystifying the way you are, no pun intended, sticking to your guns on this despite the clear language of the statute.

Because approaching someone is enough to induce reasonable fear of assault now? Are you really going to go with that? The evidence is what Harper told police originally and is in many articles. He originally stated to police that Dan was coming at him. He later said through the lawyers he felt like Dan was charging at him on a mission. Again, Dan said nothing to him, had no weapons, made no physically threatening actions except to walk at Dan, who happened to be in the doorway from the garage to the house and blocking Dan from his wife. Dan could simply have intended to walk past him into the house to grab the wife and get out. So unless you are trying to state that walking at someone is justification enough to cause reasonable belief of intent to cause injury... oh wait you did.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Because approaching someone is enough to induce reasonable fear of assault now? Are you really going to go with that?

You are the one saying that merely entering an unoccupied garage to steal beer is enough to induce reasonable fear of assault or a forcible felony. Are you really going to go with that?

As to the Hunter case, you are, as usual, misrepresenting the evidence. The unrebutted evidence was that Fredenberg was at the house to confront Hunter about cheating with Fredenberg's wife, that Fredenberg "charged" at Hunter, and that Fredenberg did not stop when Hunter told him to stop and that Hunter had a gun. The county attorney felt that was enough to give rise to a reasonable fear by Hunter that Fredenberg would assault him, and thus to justify the use of deadly force under MT law. I certainly would think most people would fear an assault on those facts.

 

[HumblePie]

You are the one saying that merely entering an unoccupied garage to steal beer is enough to induce reasonable fear of assault or a forcible felony. Are you really going to go with that?

As to the Hunter case, you are, as usual, misrepresenting the evidence. The unrebutted evidence was that Fredenberg was at the house to confront Hunter about cheating with Fredenberg's wife, that Fredenberg "charged" at Hunter, and that Fredenberg did not stop when Hunter told him to stop and that Hunter had a gun. The county attorney felt that was enough to create reasonable fear of assault. I certainly would think most people would fear an assault on those facts.

I didn't state stealing a beer, but nice words.

I stated that being in someone's home after hours is reasonable belief the person may be there to cause harm. How is a home owner going to know that a person is there to steal a beer or kill them in the dark? That is a horrible onus to put upon a home owner. Think about that carefully will you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I didn't state stealing a beer, but nice words.

I stated that being in someone's home after hours is reasonable belief the person may be there to cause harm. How is a home owner going to know that a person is there to steal a beer or kill them in the dark? That is a horrible onus to put upon a home owner. Think about that carefully will you.

I know you didn't say stealing beer, but those are the facts of the case. Dede was looking for beer in the garage. Dede had made no move toward the house itself, or any efforts to open the door to the house, much less demonstrated any hostile intent toward anyone. Ergo, there was no reasonable justification to believe he would commit an assault or forcible felony. I fully expect that if Kaarma had flipped on the lights he would have run away, and almost certainly he would have, had he known there was a gun involved.

If, hypothetically, Dede (like Fredenberg) had entered the dwelling, and continued to move toward Kaarma despite being told to stop, Kaarma might reasonably have feared an assault and been justified in using deadly force. Merely entering an unoccupied garage, however, is not enough.

How is this so hard to understand? Why is it that Texas and other states have true defense-of-property Castle laws, and Montana does not, yet you assume (despite clear language in the statute to the contrary) that mere entry is sufficient to justify the use of deadly force?

Respectfully, what always seems to happen in these arguments is that you rely on what you believe the law says. I then point out what it actually says. You then refuse to adapt to new information, and instead dig in your heels and fight. (Or, as in the case of the "first degree murder" referenced in this thread, ignore clear evidence that your assumptions are wrong in favor of fighting about something different.) It's a counter-productive way to go through life. You'd be better off moderating your approach and being willing to learn new things. I try to be diplomatic toward you but you make that hard because you are so unyielding even when you're relying on inaccurate assumptions.

 

[blankslate]

To be fair, this guy was using the method of self defense recommended by VP Joe Biden.

Because Joe Biden said bait the person to try and break and enter....


Your posts about subject of fatal shootings are among the most ignorant and useless ones that get posted in threads like these.


...

 

[blankslate]

Its basically the her skirt was too short so she baited me into "raping" her argument.

There is a substantial difference between having property stolen and having your body violated.... just fyi.


One sucks (and could suck terribly) and one is orders of magnitude worse than losing a physical object.



....

 

[HumblePie]

I know you didn't say stealing beer, but those are the facts of the case. Dede was looking for beer in the garage. Dede had made no move toward the house itself, or any efforts to open the door to the house, much less demonstrated any hostile intent toward anyone. Ergo, there was no reasonable justification to believe he would commit an assault or forcible felony. I fully expect that if Kaarma had flipped on the lights he would have run away, and almost certainly he would have, had he known there was a gun involved.

If, hypothetically, Dede (like Fredenberg) had entered the dwelling, and continued to move toward Kaarma despite being told to stop, Kaarma might reasonably have feared an assault and been justified in using deadly force. Merely entering an unoccupied garage, however, is not enough.

How is this so hard to understand? Why is it that Texas and other states have true defense-of-property Castle laws, and Montana does not, yet you assume (despite clear language in the statute to the contrary) that mere entry is sufficient to justify the use of deadly force?

Respectfully, what always seems to happen in these arguments is that you rely on what you believe the law says. I then point out what it actually says. You then refuse to adapt to new information, and instead dig in your heels and fight. (Or, as in the case of the "first degree murder" referenced in this thread, ignore clear evidence that your assumptions are wrong in favor of fighting about something different.) It's a counter-productive way to go through life. You'd be better off moderating your approach and being willing to learn new things. I try to be diplomatic toward you but you make that hard because you are so unyielding even when you're relying on inaccurate assumptions.

Because there is no outline governing what would constitute reasonable belief in that situation since the law was changed in 2009. That is what I am trying to point out.

Since when has it ever been that approaching someone is enough to constitute reasonable fear that they are about to present an imminent threat of bodily harm in any state? Answer: no where. The point I was making is that there are cases since the law was adopted that are far more favorable in Montana in regards to giving leeway to the homeowner on how they present what gave them "reasonable" belief versus other cases. I linked in several other ones previously such as the person shooting at someone in their window. They shot because the person turned their head at them when they said, "don't move" and used that as justification for reasonable fear and that was accepted.

And yes, if someone breaks into your house after dark, it is pretty easy to assume that they may be there to do more than burglarize. To put that decision upon the homeowner at night is stupid and not the intent of the law. Which is why some of these cases seem to be far more lenient in regards to what a home owner can claim to be their cause of reasonable suspicion, which goes beyond having to identity a weapon in the hand of the intruder.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Because there is no outline governing what would constitute reasonable belief in that situation since the law was changed in 2009. That is what I am trying to point out.

Since when has it ever been that approaching someone is enough to constitute reasonable fear that they are about to present an imminent threat of bodily harm in any state? Answer: no where. The point I was making is that there are cases since the law was adopted that are far more favorable in Montana in regards to giving leeway to the homeowner on how they present what gave them "reasonable" belief versus other cases. I linked in several other ones previously such as the person shooting at someone in their window. They shot because the person turned their head at them when they said, "don't move" and used that as justification for reasonable fear and that was accepted.

And yes, if someone breaks into your house after dark, it is pretty easy to assume that they may be there to do more than burglarize. To put that decision upon the homeowner at night is stupid and not the intent of the law. Which is why some of these cases seem to be far more lenient in regards to what a home owner can claim to be their cause of reasonable suspicion, which goes beyond having to identity a weapon in the hand of the intruder.

The reasonableness standard is ultimately up to a jury, unless the prosecutor believes the facts are sufficiently clear that the matter should be presented to a jury. Merely "approaching" typically would not be enough, but rushing at someone with a red face and an angry expression, and not stopping when they tell you to and remind you they are armed probably is, hence the outcome in the Hunter case.

As in this case, walking into an open, unoccupied garage demonstrates no intent whatsoever to commit an assault or forcible felony. You take the view that "if someone breaks into your house after dark, it is pretty easy to assume that they may be there to do more than burglarize." I consider that view nonsensical. The vast majority of burglaries are property crimes, not crimes against persons, and entering an open garage does not, without more, demonstrate any intent to hurt anyone. This is, in any event, a case-by-case thing. The facts of the Kaarma case, including his own statements to others prior to the murder, indicated a clear intent to do exactly what he did: lay a trap in his open garage (including a purse in plain view full of "marked" items, a motion detector and a baby monitor with video), then kill whomever sprung the trap. Nothing Dede did represented any real threat of violence, and there was no justification for this use of deadly force.

What you want to be the law in Montana, and what you believe is the law in Montana, clearly does not correlate with the law the legislature actually enacted (and the law that Montana courts enforce).

 

[HumblePie]

The reasonableness standard is ultimately up to a jury, unless the prosecutor believes the facts are sufficiently clear that the matter should be presented to a jury. Merely "approaching" typically would not be enough, but rushing at someone with a red face and an angry expression, and not stopping when they tell you to and remind you they are armed probably is, hence the outcome in the Hunter case.

As in this case, walking into an open, unoccupied garage demonstrates no intent to commit an assault or forcible felony. You take the view that "if someone breaks into your house after dark, it is pretty easy to assume that they may be there to do more than burglarize." I consider that view nonsensical. This is, in any event, a case-by-case thing. The facts of the Kaarma case, including his own statements to others prior to the murder, indicated a clear intent to do exactly what he did: lay a trap in his open garage (including a purse in plain view full of "marked" items, a motion detector and a baby monitor with video), then kill whomever sprung the trap. Nothing Dede did represented any real threat of violence, and there was no justification for this use of deadly force.

What you want to be the law in Montana, and what you believe is the law in Montana, clearly does not correlate with the law the legislature actually enacted (and the law that Montana courts enforce).

Except in Harpers case, Dan was not rushing at him with a red face. His face my have been red from anger, but that doesn't constitute it.

And reasonable belief is held both by the jury and precedents. Precedents have shown in some cases that the simple act of breaking and entering into a person's home at night in Montana is enough to constitute reasonable fear of the intruder's intent to cause harm. That has been upheld in previous cases. That was the whole point I was making.

I was also pointing out that being "ready" to shoot an intruder that breaks into your house in Montana is not illegal, nor has any real bearing on this case. What got Kaarma convicted was his actions after the initial shooting and not the "setup" as that is a complete red herring. Otherwise the mere act of buying a gun to shoot an intruder could be seen as "laying" a trap by your same argument.

 

[bshole]

......

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Except in Harpers case, Dan was not rushing at him with a red face. His face my have been red from anger, but that doesn't constitute it.

And reasonable belief is held both by the jury and precedents. Precedents have shown in some cases that the simple act of breaking and entering into a person's home at night in Montana is enough to constitute reasonable fear of the intruder's intent to cause harm. That has been upheld in previous cases. That was the whole point I was making.

I was also pointing out that being "ready" to shoot an intruder that breaks into your house in Montana is not illegal, nor has any real bearing on this case. What got Kaarma convicted was his actions after the initial shooting and not the "setup" as that is a complete red herring. Otherwise the mere act of buying a gun to shoot an intruder could be seen as "laying" a trap by your same argument.

You say that, yet you have not provided any examples - just examples of cases in which people felt threatened by a person's conduct once that person was in their home. Moreover, entering a home is qualitatively different from entering an unoccupied garage, even an attached one. Lastly, the evidence in this case demonstrated that Kaarma intended to kill, regardless of whether or not there was a perceived threat.

For whatever reason you are acting as though his setting a trap was immaterial to this case, and that the entire reason he was convicted was the final shot. That is not true. All of the evidence went to the jury, because it all went to the key question of whether he in fact had a reasonable belief of an assault or forcible felony, or whether he shot for another reason (his stated desire to kill an intruder). You are completely wrong that the facts clearly supported the use of deadly force in the first place - they did not, at least under Montana law (they would have in Texas, however).

 

[HumblePie]

You say that, yet you have not provided any examples - just examples of cases in which people felt threatened by a person's conduct once that person was in their home. Moreover, entering a home is qualitatively different from entering an unoccupied garage, even an attached one. Lastly, the evidence in this case demonstrated that Kaarma intended to kill, regardless of whether or not there was a perceived threat.

For whatever reason you are acting as though his setting a trap was immaterial to this case, and that the entire reason he was convicted was the final shot. That is not true. All of the evidence went to the jury, because it all went to the key question of whether he in fact had a reasonable belief of an assault or forcible felony, or whether he shot for another reason (his stated desire to kill an intruder). You are completely wrong that the facts clearly supported the use of deadly force in the first place - they did not, at least under Montana law (they would have in Texas, however).

The garage versus a house in terms of breaking and entering in regards to the law does not matter. As shown by Harpers case. The other case I linked to previous of the man shooting at an intruder in the window when he yelled at him to stop shows that merely being in the home at night was enough to allow the jury to believe the home owner's claim for reasonable fear.

Kaarma's expressed intentions was to shoot the next burglar, not kill. That is what the hairdresser said and that was shortly after he was initially burglarized. Such a statement, made off the cuff in the heat of the moment a long time prior to the actual shooting Dede really doesn't have much relevance. It's almost akin to puffery or someone saying, "I'm so angry I could kill you!" right before storming off.

That does not show he had the intention to kill previously regardless. As for the "bait" Markus didn't even leave the garage door open, the girl friend did as she didn't close it all the way after smoking to let it air out and just in case Markus was going to go after her to smoke. Least that was the testimony and video evidence that was provided to the jury.

http://newstalkkgvo.com/janelle-pflager-describes-shooting-of-diren-dede/

Here is evidence of the audio call between Markus and the GF shortly after the arrest.

http://newstalkkgvo.com/audio-markus-kaarma-calls-with-janelle-pflager/

Both were talking about the break in scaring the shit out of them.

The major point the prosecutors put up with that pause between the third and final fourth shot. Where Markus took time to adjust, re-aim, and shoot directly at Dede's head. That is the reason for the conviction.

 

[HumblePie]

Also, according to testimony and video evidence of the garage door being opened.

"approximately four inches” was the garage door opened off the ground at the time Dede broke in according the Janelle and the baby monitor.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The garage versus a house in terms of breaking and entering in regards to the law does not matter. As shown by Harpers case. The other case I linked to previous of the man shooting at an intruder in the window when he yelled at him to stop shows that merely being in the home at night was enough to allow the jury to believe the home owner's claim for reasonable fear.

Kaarma's expressed intentions was to shoot the next burglar, not kill. That is what the hairdresser said and that was shortly after he was initially burglarized. Such a statement, made off the cuff in the heat of the moment a long time prior to the actual shooting Dede really doesn't have much relevance. It's almost akin to puffery or someone saying, "I'm so angry I could kill you!" right before storming off.

That does not show he had the intention to kill previously regardless. As for the "bait" Markus didn't even leave the garage door open, the girl friend did as she didn't close it all the way after smoking to let it air out and just in case Markus was going to go after her to smoke. Least that was the testimony and video evidence that was provided to the jury.

http://newstalkkgvo.com/janelle-pflager-describes-shooting-of-diren-dede/

Here is evidence of the audio call between Markus and the GF shortly after the arrest.

http://newstalkkgvo.com/audio-markus-kaarma-calls-with-janelle-pflager/

Both were talking about the break in scaring the shit out of them.

The major point the prosecutors put up with that pause between the third and final fourth shot. Where Markus took time to adjust, re-aim, and shoot directly at Dede's head. That is the reason for the conviction.

Again, your "facts" are contrary to the evidence.

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...a-man-convicted-exchange-students-death.html:

But jurors heard neighbors testify that Kaarma's girlfriend, Janelle Pflager, told them the couple planned to bait and catch a burglar themselves because they believed police weren't responding.

They also heard hair stylist Tanya Colby, who testified that Kaarma told her during a haircut: "I've been up three nights with a shotgun waiting to kill some kids." She said he later told her, "I'm not kidding, you're seriously going to see this on the news."

Kill, not just shoot. Does that do anything to change your unshakable confidence in Kaarma's story that he was reacting out of fear of an assault, and that he and the girlfriend were just innocent victims until that fourth shot was fired? It sounds to me as though everything they said, both before and after the fact reflects an intention to kill an intruder, rather than any sincere fear on their part. As he sat in jail they were coldly discussing the Castle Doctrine, not talking about how terrified they were.

You keep saying, as though it is fact, that the fourth shot is the only one that was unlawful. That is not true.

Also, according to testimony and video evidence of the garage door being opened.

"approximately four inches” was the garage door opened off the ground at the time Dede broke in according the Janelle and the baby monitor.

Link?

 

[Jaskalas]

A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

So what does that mean? In practice, it would mean that the person who entered the home had manifested some behavior (such as holding a gun, rushing toward the property owner or saying "I'm going to kill you!") that would create fear of assault or a forcible felony in a reasonable person. Merely entering a garage is not conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear these things...

Thank you for the full explanation, as it covers my earlier question as well as others. This is very much a sensible law, and the home owner clearly violated it.

 

[CitizenKain]

Kaarma's expressed intentions was to shoot the next burglar, not kill.

If you intend to shoot someone, then your intent is to kill them.