The New York Times has long held treated self-defense rights with scorn and derision and they continue the pattern with their latest article attacking Castle Doctrine laws based upon a single incident in Montana where an angry husband confronted his neighbor, who was having an affair with the angry husband’s wife, in the neighbor’s garage. 

The neighbor warned the angry husband he was armed and that he needed to leave, yet the angry husband continued his intrusion, advancing while screaming profanities.

The neighbor fired three times, dropping Mr. Angry Husband about three feet from the laundry room doorway where the neighbor was standing.

The New York Times paints this case as prime example for why we should strip homeowners of their right to defend their home from invasion by so-called “unarmed” attackers.

At the same time, they ignored the anecdotal case of Sean Kedzie who was attacked by two unarmed individuals vandalizing or stealing Romney/Ryan signage just outside Kedzie’s home.  The two attackers beat Kedzie to the point of hospitalization in a savage attack.

And the NY Times wonders why their circulation continues to slide downward.

Unarmed and Gunned Down by Homeowner in His ‘Castle’

KALISPELL, Mont. (New York Times) — 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.