Montana Man Cleared By Castle Doctrine Law After Shooting Unarmed Husband Who Confronted Him About An Affair With His Wife

We have another “Castle doctrine” case this week. The most recent case comes from Kalispell, Montana where Brice Harper, 24, gunned down Dan Fredenberg, 40, in his garage. Fredenberg (left), 40, was coming over to confront Harper (right below) about having an affair with his wife, Heather Fredenberg. Harper cut the encounter short by shooting him dead and a prosecutor has declared that the shooting cannot be prosecuted given the state’s Castle doctrine or “Make My Day” law.


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.”

The Montana law reads:

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) 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.

History: En. 94-3-103 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-103; amd. Sec. 1644, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

As with many of these laws, Montana Castle Doctrine allows the use of force to “prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry.” Since this covers cases involving the reasonable belief that a forcible felony is being committed, it is quite broad. Indeed, Corrigan stressed that under the law “You don’t have to claim that you were afraid for your life. You just have to claim that he was in the house illegally. If you think someone’s going to punch you in the nose or engage you in a fistfight, that’s sufficient grounds to engage in lethal force.”

Heather Fredenberg, 22, has since sought a restraining order against Harper, with who she admits to having an affair. She told her husband about the affair and the men had had prior angry words. Heather, a former barista that married Fredenberg after becoming pregnant, had a rocky marriage with Fredenberg. Her mother is now leading a campaign to get rid of the Castle Doctrine called “Justice for Dan Fredenberg.”

Shortly before the shooting, Ms. Fredenberg took her two boys over the Harper’s house. Fredenberg questioned her on whether she had again gone to his house but she refused to answer. She later rode around with Harper in her car to allow him to diagnose a strange sound in the engine. She then spotted her husband following her and she dropped Harper off at his house — encouraging him to go in and lock the doors. He reportedly told her that he had a gun and was not afraid of her husband. Within a short time, Fredenberg was dying on Harper’s garage floor.

I have been a long critic of Castle Doctrine laws. The title refers to the old adage that “a man’s home is his castle,” which is not a common law doctrine of criminal law or torts but rather an aspirational statement. The Castle Doctrine is a generally a reference to the modern trend of legislatively empowering homeowners to use lethal force solely on the basis of a home invasion.

Under the common law, there was not “fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others” so long as you acted in reasonable self-defense or even “reasonable mistaken self-defense.” In the case of Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113 (1896), a man chased a group out of his home only to fire when a man approached him outside his home from the stone-throwing mob. It turned out to be a deputy sheriff but the court found that Courvoisier could rely on reasonable mistaken self-defense.

The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes. These laws are based on an urban legend that people are routinely prosecuted for defending their homes from intruders. The laws have produced perverse results as in the infamous case of Tom Horn in Texas. Yet, the popularity of these laws have spawned “Make My Day Better” laws that extend the privilege of lethal force to businesses and cars. Montana’s law had been invoked in workplace shootings. As with the Harper case, these cases raise the question of whether lethal force would have been used absent the law, which is criticized as enabling certain people in the use of force. This confrontation would have likely ended in a police call and maybe a scuffle. Instead, it ended in the shooting of an unarmed man.

Source: NY Times

Kudos: Meg Beasely

73 thoughts on “Montana Man Cleared By Castle Doctrine Law After Shooting Unarmed Husband Who Confronted Him About An Affair With His Wife

  1. “The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes. These laws are based on an urban legend that people are routinely prosecuted for defending their homes from intruders.”

    Yep. That’s what happens when you build laws around emotion and irrationality instead of reason. The traditional common law protections that existed before the expansive Castle Doctrine nonsense were (and are where still applied) reasonable, just and adequate.

  2. made for TV movie. Wife sets up husband to be killed by wifes lover. Wife inherits husband’s estate and insurance policy and wife and lover live “happily” ever after.

    Wife: I have been fornicating with Joe.
    Husband: I am going to confront Joe.
    Wife: yes, please do.
    Wife thinking to herself: yeah baby, we have a castle doctrine in this state.
    Husband: Joe, you a$$hole.
    Joe with gun: blam, blam.
    Wife: Joe, oh my god you killed him, that is just great, er no ah terrible.

    its still a work in progress.

  3. Brian is probably right on. However, if you have this law in your state then dont go into some guy’s garage to confront him. And if it is a condominium property then dont intrude into the common grounds. As a matter of broad sense, dont intrude. Use the internet to confront. Bark without getting bitten.
    From the content of the article it was difficult to ascertain who was porkin who.

  4. Some calls have been close….. But this one….. Come on…..it’s like expecting the cubs to win the world series….. What that five score and four years ago….. When baseball was in its infancy…..the cubs…. Now known as chubbys won back to back titles……

  5. It is always a tragedy like this that also causes a knee jerk response back too far in the opposite direction.

    I have a strong philosophical bias to believe that a man’s home IS his castle.
    The solution to this problem, and the result that happened in this case, is not to throw out the idea of the castle doctrine, but to refine it so it makes practical and fair notice sense.

    Did the gun owner make a reasonable effort to inform and direct the person to get out of his home? Or is it considered a booby-trap that once you are on someone’s property they simply have the right to kill you?

    Does the law require fair notice to the invading person to cease and desist first?

    I can’t believe that an unarmed man, faced with an armed one, and being told to remove himself from the premises, will not do so.

    The hole is in the law as written, not with the castle doctrine as a principle.

  6. Gary,

    Under common law that predated the Castle Doctrine, the standard was use of reasonable force to defend self, family and property; a sliding scale dependent upon situation. Requiring the home owner to exercise good judgement in applying appropriately reasonable force to the problem, it needed no refinement into the shooting gallery without culpability that is the modern Castle Doctrine.

    The hole is created by the Castle Doctrine which was unnecessary to start with.

  7. wow was it just to expensive to get a divorce ??? shame on her… yep the movie will be out soon…….. just saying and they live happy ever after….

  8. As private rights continue to erode, although admittedly with a couple of favorable decisions in the past couple of years, the castle doctrine laws actually reinforce the idea of rights.
    Instead of reverting to common law concepts that will ultimately rely upon interpretation of what is often messy facts, the rule is simple, stay out of another person’s house.

  9. The self defense justification already has a provision for an altercation that takes place in your home or work, but it still requires that use of force must be proportional and reasonable. The use of force in this situation can be considered neither proportional or reasonable.

  10. Disgusting situation. I wonder if the prosecutor took into account that the victim did not follow Harper into the house when he went to retrieve the gun? How can there be a fear of the victim when he did not follow him into the house? Sad case and horrible and unnecessary law.

  11. Oh, let’s see. Cuckolded husband is shot by paramour while standing in paramour’s garage and the paramour continues to pursue the widow even after the homicide. Reasonable apprehension of fear for safety or an act in furtherance of base motive of lust under cover of legal doctrine? Sometimes, as Bumble said, “the law is an ass.”

  12. Bruce:

    “If the garage isn’t attached to the house does the castle doctrine still apply?”

    **************************************

    Depends on whether or not it’s within the moat. :D

  13. Mespo, maybe justice will be done when the grieving widow shoots Harper under the castle doctrine. After all, she is now living “in fear of him.”

  14. I say shame on her…. she is the fault of all of this….lets see how much shit I can cause between the two men…. lets antagonize both men and make them jealousy of each other and let them fight it out… well murder now… wow this woman needs some help…. and she has two children… how will she raise them??? just saying

  15. How did Harper “a former barsiata” get pregnant, and why did he marry Mr. Fredenberg? Was Mr Fredenberg already married to his young wife when Harper married him?

  16. “Harper, a former barista that married Fredenberg …”

    “Shortly before the shooting, Ms. Harper …”

    After struggling to comprehend this complex narrative, I concluded that ‘Harper’ in the first instance should be replaced by ‘Stephanie’, and in the second by ‘Fredenberg’.

    Thank you for the blog post on this important topic.

  17. It was the DA who decided not to prosecute, seemingly just on the word of Harper.

    The two (three?) car garage is attached to the house. The article indicates that Harper shot from the door to the house proper. If Harper had just locked the door to the house, there most likely would not have been a death.

  18. BettyKath,

    Good thinking.

    Amd if I went into the huuse to get my gun in self-defense, then I am certain that I would have locked the door behind me upon entering—just so as to avoid being jumped on from hiding on return to guard against forced entry.

    He did not, showing in my mind, intent to return with a view to using the weapon no matter what circustance he encountered. The husband was an idiot to hang around.

    Just take the trash out to the garbage pail and ditch her. I think it was more than her motor that needed “listening” to by the lover.

  19. OS:

    “Mespo, maybe justice will be done when the grieving widow shoots Harper under the castle doctrine. After all, she is now living “in fear of him.”

    *************************

    Sounds like a Lifetime movie to me.

  20. One thing that can be said, regardless of whether the Castle Doctrine is applicable or not, things are usually far better by not taking extreme measures. The least amount of force that can accomplish the goal is always best. Depending on the situation, I would either have called the police or escorted him off the property. Most likely, I would have most likely done the former. The reason: I don’t want to have to deal with any potential fallout as a result because it is a headache, risky, and what about the other person as well?

    Personally, I don’t see why in this case the shooter did not just go inside and lock the door. What’s the worst that could have happened in the garage, the husband vandalized the property? Then he could be arrested for burglary and malicious mischief. (the shooter could have satisfaction in this) Or he could have broken down the door and well the law is a little more clear here.

    There was no real need to shoot this man from what I read here. Just because you “can” do something does not mean you “must” do something.

  21. Can someone explain to me what the purpose of “castle doctrine” laws are. Doesn’t the self defense justification provide that you do not have to retreat at your home or place of work? What do the “castle doctrine” laws add to that law, other that removing the reasonable and proportional requirements of a self defense claim?

  22. From the NY times link in at the end of the article.

    On Sept. 22, Mr. Harper called Ms. Fredenberg and asked a favor: He was moving out of town the next day, and could she come over and help him clean the house? She took her 18-month-old twin boys and spent the afternoon at his home, a five-minute drive from hers. She swapped tense text messages with Mr. Fredenberg and talked on the phone around 8:30 p.m. He asked whether she was with Mr. Harper. She said she did not answer. He cursed and hung up..

    WOW !! Who could imagine something confrontational might develop.

    Fredenberg told his father, the night before he was going to leave his wife.
    He should have done it immediately, he’d be alive today.

    The other two parties are hopeless dumb**sses.

  23. Mespo,

    You must be careful about which moat we’re talking about…. More seems to be better applied…..

  24. This woman is trouble…. and has gotten her husband killed because she wants to play games with two men… wow I am sure he has known that she was messing around on him for some time…. he should have just left her and took the kids with him….. Shame on her….. and wonder how those children will grow up… why get involved with the man that your wife is screwing ??? wow just leave her… yep he would still be a live… might even see the boyfriend and her together down the road… movie…

    divorce …… and take the kids with ya…. he would still be here… just saying

    seen a lot of woman play games with men… who can I make more jealousy… who wants me more… or who loves me more… please… domestic violence….. sad thing…

  25. 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.”
    ————————————————————————————
    Too bad, so sad. I do believe it would have turned out differently.

    I know somebody named Harper who’s an International Specialist Agent. Oh wait, he wasn’t a Special Agent, he was just a regular Agent.They sent him to Appeals. Guess what, you’re not that special.

    Now, Mr. Harper, How do you like in Appeals?

  26. Were we talking on the other thread about property rights?

    The only men in Sweden who think they own women are bikers, immigrant haters, and some ME immigrants. All others say, “entertain her while you can!” (A tad exaggerated! ie the latter
    invitation.

  27. Actually all know that what they get is only a short term loan. Even the ME immigrants, they are the only ones who are shook up about this knowledge.

    How will I protect my daughter, they worry. Pour boiling oil down his mouth. A couple did, with the help of their son.

  28. How will I protect my daughter, they worry. Pour boiling oil down his mouth. A couple did, with the help of their son.
    —————————————————-
    Is that called mercy. This is America. One of my sisters told me somebody has to fall on their sword. I said, get out you sword. I didn’t do anything wrong and I didn’t say anything wrong. I’m not going to fall on my sword. I have four sisters and no brothers. I won’t fall on my sword.

  29. It’s too bad really. Fredenburg was just going to make a gift to Harper of his wife. Harper objected. He didn’t want a cheater except for a little fun. Fredenburg insisted. Harper just had to shut him up.

  30. Dredd,
    “…peep in the keyhole on your knees.” Ah, know it well.

    Matt,
    It was in Sweden. One father killed his own daughter. She is saint declared with a day to her every year.
    Honor above all is their guideline. Fortunately the grandkids are growing up like Swedish ones. Beautful craatures to see. Equal advantages enables all.

    BK,
    Just as I expected. Feeding two kids and a cheater is no fun at all.

  31. Bron

    you forgot
    after husband says “joe you a$$hole”
    then joe says “lemme git mah gun”
    joe with gun, blam blam
    =================================

    now for the real question, does heather still get the life insurance?

  32. pete:

    if there are no exclusions for murder if she was stupid enough to tell Harper about her plan [if she had a plan]. Hopefully he only had a small policy or he left it to his mother.

    Maybe I watch too many who dunits but this is definitely a made for TV movie.

  33. Most likely no angels in this story. People tend to pair up with those of similar emotional maturity and there’s usually been bickering and provocation on all sides. Still, Fredenberg didn’t deserve to die. His wife may have done her best to stir the pot but she probably wanted a fight, not a killing. The DA probably knew that domestic disputes are messy to prosecute and that the girlfriend might back out depending on her no doubt rocy relationship with Harper.

  34. 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

  35. 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.

  36. OTOTOTOT—sort of

    Grisham, the writer was on the Golbert Report (date?).
    Unknown to me (what isn’t?), he was promoting himself and his new book “Rackets”.
    When asked why he went from lawyering to writing, he replied that he was starving. “Were you a bad lawyer?” asked Colbert. Grisham replied: “Well, I had a lot of guys in jail.

    When asked about the killing of a judge, major theme in the book, he replied “we all have several we would like to kill (among the judges).

    Enjoy if you can find it

    Are Grisham’s books amusing? He was candidly deadpan.

  37. Mercedes/Megyn, I’m a cop so I have a good perspective on this…..it does not matter if someone knew they were being followed or were involved in an affair. The guy that died was trespassing on the shooter’s property. It does not matter if the garage door was open. The guy that died did not have the right to go to the guy’s house. I’m not saying the affair was right, but husbands do assault/kill guys that are messing with their wives, and this homeowner has the right to defend his property and his life. Its not murder, and its not the death penalty, its a man protecting his property and it wouldn’t have happened if the husband stayed away and chose to confront this situation differently.

  38. Well, an idiot goes to the mans house, who’s layin his wife, not rape, peanutbutter legs, meets his maker – duh !
    Why are we even discussin this ?

  39. I see nothing wrong with the Montana law. Someone comes on my property uninvited and enter my home garage or otherwise, I consider a threat to my family or myself, and if he does not leave immediately when warned I see no problem in use of deadly force. We sure as heck can not depend on our leagal system to protect us. Victims have no champions.

  40. The law is clear. Don’t enter someone’s home/garage uninvited. The shooter is totally justified to use lethal force.
    It turned out that the dead guy was unarmed, but what if he wasn’t? He could have had a gun or knife, or even picked up a shovel or hammer from within the garage. Why should the homeowner have to wait and find out if someone intruding on his property is a armed? By then it may be too late. That is the whole point of the law, and I fully support it.
    He should have just dumped his wife when she told him she was having an affair.

  41. The Montana law is good The home owner has the rigth to protect his property. the husband should have back off once he knew he had a gun pointed at him. I carry all the time and yes I would do the same I will not be a victim.

  42. What did the husband say to the guy that shot him? Did he threaten the man? was he irate and abusive? Did he attempt to hit the man? Since they had a confrontation before this it is reasonable to assume that the husband was not welcome on the man’s property. Was the affair still going on or was the man simply trying to help the woman find a problem in her car? Did the shooter know that the husband was not armed? There are a lot of questions that are not addressed in the above article. Megan Kelly is supposed to be a lawyer. She should know better than to not address all these questions and more. This story has been poorly researched and presented, and I am surprised at Fox News for not doing a much better job of working up this story. We have all seen in the past where homes were invaded and the home owner shot the intruder in defense of himself and all in his home, and then the homeowner is prosecuted and thrown into prison. That is what the Castle Doctrine is all about, and Megan Kelly knows it. I am disappointed in Megan on this issue. Maybe the shooter was justified and maybe he wasn’t. If the confrontation was about to get violent, the man may well have been justified. The fact is that the woman should have and could have used better judgement than behaving the way she did, That hasn’t been explored either, has it.

  43. @ john530, where I live you have to retreat to the furthest corner of your house before you can resist. In your car you have to run away before you can resist. If you do resist, and a criminal is killed, you can be sued by his family because you took away his support. Most Castle Doctrine laws are to make sure if the one killed was in a criminal activity,and the police find you are not criminally negligient, you can not be sued in a civil court. This is the main tenant of the laws.
    I support The Castle Doctrine’s 100%,but disagree that this was covered. As far as I am concerned this WAS murder.

  44. @Rob-
    Where you live this may be murder, but in Montana it’s not.
    Those duty to retreat laws get innocents killed in there own homes. A criminal is a criminal, nobody forces them to intrude on someones property and why should a homeowner have to take a risk that the intruder may or may not try to harm or kill them? It is simple, if you don’t want to get shot stay out other peoples homes.

  45. I agree with WHITEFALCON. Kelly should know better, but there are those ratings to get! It irritates me that Fox always features a kidnapping, or murder or crime of the month…every day of the week there are hundreds of examples they could use but notice how they pick one sensational story like the Scott Peterson murder and play it up for weeks. When will the news people learn there is a difference between ‘the publics right to know’ and the public’s NEED to know’? Kellys’s Court is just Megyn being a ‘pretend judge’ since she never made it to the bench in real life. Megyn, be a newscaster or a lawyer but not both. I want news not some crime of the week you or Fox selects. I used to work for the Dept of Corrections and could have given you TONS of stuff for your ‘court’ to argue over. Leave your law and your kids and your hubby’s book etc at home. Except for Oreilly and his constant bragging and pushing his books, none of your peers on Fox sink so low.

  46. So what did the husband think he was going to accomplish by going over there to confront the boyfriend ????? I know you are screwing my wife…. than what fight it out ??? just what the wife wanted I am sure….. he already new that the wife was cheating on him… so just get the kids leave …divorce her…. I blame her…. playing with both of these men…. shame on her… she is to blame here…. and the husband should have just moved on… took the kids… let her go live with the lover…. but domestic violence is a bad call to go on… I know….

    was there a fist fight ?? did he just walk out of the house back into the garage and shoot him ??? and why didn’t the boyfriend just lock the door and call 911 how hard would that have been…. both men were probable hot heads… big men….. lets fight over this woman…. PLEASE …. no woman or man is worth that….

    If someone broke into my home ya they might get shot…

    this was a big sex…triangle…and I’m sure she was playing both men right to the hilt… shame on her….

  47. idealist707 1, October 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Dredd,
    “…peep in the keyhole on your knees.” Ah, know it well.
    ———————————————————————-
    Do you know that back in the day there were only about two hundred keys?

  48. The man came over with the intent to do bodily harm and got what he deserved!!!! How about this…..if the man never went to his house period, he would be alive today!!!! But nobody is saying that!!!!!

  49. mathew mccall 1, December 25, 2012 at 3:57 am

    The man came over with the intent to do bodily harm and got what he deserved!!!! How about this…..if the man never went to his house period, he would be alive today!!!! But nobody is saying that!!!!!
    =============================================
    Mr. mccall,

    “Shortly before the shooting, Ms. Fredenberg took her two boys over the Harper’s house. Fredenberg questioned her on whether she had again gone to his house but she refused to answer. She later rode around with Harper in her car to allow him to diagnose a strange sound in the engine. She then spotted her husband following her and she dropped Harper off at his house — encouraging him to go in and lock the doors. He reportedly told her that he had a gun and was not afraid of her husband. Within a short time, Fredenberg was dying on Harper’s garage floor.”

    Are you taking into consideration that Mr. Harper was being intentionally antagonistic, in a most inappropriate fashion, for quite some time prior to the shooting?

    Merry Christmas.

  50. When the guy went into the house to get his gun, he should have (a) gotten his gun and stayed in the house and (b) called 911 and told them to rush the hell over there and get the trespasser out of his garage and charge him with assault, trespass and whatever else they had. Then he should have sued for divorce and within a mere 20 years this all might have blown over. As it was he is innocent? Great. He’s innocent, a cuckhold is dead, his lover has a restraining order out on him, two kids are placed in the “at risk” category, and he can pretend that his conduct and his “innocence” are good for America, right?

    If we did not glorify the stupidest and most obnoxious among us we would get a lot farther along the evolutionary trail. A law that says you can kill somebody (or as in this case, OVERKILL somebody) if you are AFRAID they will assault you, should be ruled unconstitutional as depriving strangers of their life interests. The punishment for boorishness and trespass should not be murder.

  51. Oh, and about castle doctrine. If a man’s home is his castle, is a woman’s home also her castle? If she is afraid that a man (including but not limited to her boyfriend or husband) may assault or attack her, can she kill him?

  52. Um, are you guys actually serious, he was unarmed? So, your point is? Do you realize how many times people beat others to death, with fists? And Interpersonal Problems (Partner problems) are a frequent Cause, But, keep preaching about teh poor victim, and the whiny cunt shit disturber of a wife can keep playing pity rolls even though her words implied a threat

Comments are closed.