NYT weighs in on Montana castle doctrine. Just guess what they think..

[cobber]

As usual the comments are more entertaining than the article, which is predictably knee-jerk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/u...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121024&_r=0

Someone thoughtfully pointed out the dangers of moving to Montana, so I had to write back:

Or if you're moving from most places in the US to NYC, be aware that you have the right to call 911 and let the NYPD shoot innocent bystanders on your behalf.

 

[Loco179]

Isn't the NY Times having money troubles? I cannot wait till we see their almighty newsrag stop printing...lol

 

[CBR1000rr]

Surprisingly, I thought the article was well written. I don't agree with the position they took but it is New York (AKA - California of the East).

What I don't understand is this:

People are beaten to death every day. At what point in the middle of a beating can you call 911 and ask permission to defend yourself? Granted, the a-hole sleeping..... Ahem, I mean emotionally "dating" a married woman deserves to have his a** beat but the perp/vicitm in this case was drunk on anger and alcohol and might not have stopped had he gotten a hold of him. I wonder if the NYT would have written a piece about that scenario?

 

[indytechnerd]

Sounds to me like this poor schmuck was executed.

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.

How would this play out under Indiana law?

 

[eldirector]

Sounds to me like this poor schmuck was executed.
How would this play out under Indiana law?

Based on the info provided in that article, it would likely be the same here in Indiana.

Indiana Code 35-41-3

(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

If someone enters your home illegally, you may use all necessary force to remove the threat.

 

[indytechnerd]

Based on the info provided in that article, it would likely be the same here in Indiana.

Indiana Code 35-41-3

(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

If someone enters your home illegally, you may use all necessary force to remove the threat.

Maybe. The way I'm reading it is like this:

Shooter is in the garage. DeadGuy approaches from the driveway. Shooter exits the garage into the house and retrieves a weapon from the bedroom. Shooter returns to the garage, confronts DeadGuy, and drops the hammer 3x.

Post mostly typed then I found some other details, old post deleted, new post below

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/dailyinterlake.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/d7/8d7e415e-1240-11e2-bc7b-0019bb2963f4/50746f804b882.pdf.pdf

In reading this PDF report, I stand 100% behind Shooter (in the shooting incident ONLY). Maybe I would have slammed the door in DeadGuy's face and waited on him to forcibly enter my house, but it sounds like DeadGuy (could also be called DrunkGuy) had up a head of steam and was making his way through the garage to thump (or worse) Shooter. Shooter gave DrunkGuy fair warning, DrunkGuy (effectively) gave Shooter the finger. Shooter gave DeadGuy/DrunkGuy a terminal case of lead poisoning.

 

[ghuns]

In reading this PDF report, I stand 100% behind Shooter (in the shooting incident ONLY). Maybe I would have slammed the door in DeadGuy's face and waited on him to forcibly enter my house, but it sounds like DeadGuy (could also be called DrunkGuy) had up a head of steam and was making his way through the garage to thump (or worse) Shooter. Shooter gave DrunkGuy fair warning, DrunkGuy (effectively) gave Shooter the finger. Shooter gave DeadGuy/DrunkGuy a terminal case of lead poisoning.

Great find. I fail to see, how after reading that, anyone could find fault with the shooting. As far as messin around with a crazy drunk guy's old lady, well...

 

[cobber]

I can only assume that the county attorney's letter would have been available to the NYT, so their parsing of facts seems deliberate, to reach the desired conclusion.

I usually find the comments even further off the wall. Makes me wonder if America can be said to be one country anymore.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

More attempted policy by antedote. If they want to play that game, we got lots of antedotes too.

We had this conversation, the Times lost . . . badly.

Time to move on and improve on Castle Doctrine. E.g., allow liquidated damages againd the attacker's estate. Further, Castle Shield laws to prevent the names and addresses of homeowners from being released with criminal and civil penalties for those in the media that violate this statute.

Oh, we have much to do and the Times can no longer stop us.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Trespassing, attempted assault, refusal to leave after being asked to at gunpoint.... he had it coming. If he was so worried about the old lady, why not take it up with her? Or, why not just kick her to the curb? Too many other options available for Drunk Guy.

 

[RedneckReject]

I never understood the issue with men (or women) going after their cheating spouse's newfound toy. Were my husband to mess around on me, I wouldn't go after his woman. I would more likely beat HIM within an inch of his life and then tell him to kick rocks. In many cases the other party doesn't even know their new boy/girlfriend is married. Just one of those things that always bugged me about such sordid affairs as these. But yeah I do agree with the shooter in this incident. Someone in a drunken rage may not stop at a punch to the face.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Post mostly typed then I found some other details,

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...-11e2-bc7b-0019bb2963f4/50746f804b882.pdf.pdf

The Google-fu is strong with this one.

 

[Mark 1911]

I don't see any fault with what the shooter did. I try to put myself in his shoes. Wow. I just hope and pray that I never ever find myself in a situation like that one. The part that scares me the most is not wondering if I am capable of doing the right thing. What gnaws at me is that this situation could have gone the other way for him legally, and in some places, say Chicago or California, the chances of that are much higher. People should know that they have a right to defend themselves and that the law will stand behind them if they are justified in using deadly force. People should never be afraid to defend themselves for fear that they will lose everything and go to jail if they do.

 

[ClydeB]

In general, I am all for the castle defense and I believe the home owner was in his rights for what he did to the 'trespasser'. But, there's a part of me that thinks in this particular instance those two should have just had themselves a good old fashioned arse kicking fight over that woman. And moved on.

 

[Reuben Cogburn]

Note to New York residents:

If you do not like Montana's laws, don't go there.

It is really none of your ******* business.

 

[lon]

Note to New York residents:

If you do not like Montana's laws, don't go there.

It is really none of your ******* business.

Exactly. Please stay in your Gun-Free hole