Fatal shooting of University of South Carolina student who tried to enter wrong home 'justifiable,' police say

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 440 points –
Fatal shooting of University of South Carolina student who tried to enter wrong home 'justifiable,' police say
nbcnews.com

The homeowner who fatally shot a 20-year-old University of South Carolina student who tried to enter the wrong home on the street he lived on Saturday morning will not face charges because the incident was deemed "a justifiable homicide" under state law, Columbia police announced Wednesday.

Police said the identity of the homeowner who fired the gunshot that killed Nicholas Donofrio shortly before 2 a.m. Saturday will not be released because the police department and the Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office determined his actions were justified under the state's controversial "castle doctrine" law, which holds that people can act in self-defense towards "intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others."

340

You are viewing a single comment

The guy at the door was not an immediate threat to life or limb, save his own. Firing a gun was not justified without threat, IMO. But I guess in the USA you can murder people to save your property (not your life).

Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door "and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob,"

How much more "immediate" do you need? A complete stranger is trying to break into your home to do god knows what is the epitome of a clear and immediate danger to me.

What would you have done? Opened the door and welcomed them in?

So declare your firearm and say fuck off or I will shoot, don’t just shoot. As a gun owner myself I would NEVER fire without trying to give verbal commands. I couldn’t see anywhere in the article any reference to discussion between the door window breaking and firing.

What the hell??

Easy enough to say when you're not in that situation with your nerves running high.

Opening the door may have saved everyone in this case.

Did they try to communicate with the person? Look through the widow to see whether the person is armed? Flee? Get a non lethal weapon like a bat, knife, pepper spray? Hide? There was time for the home owner to go get a gun before the window broke. I assume, since this is USA, that it was already loaded (😂) so I'm sure it didn't take too long, but did they try ANY of those things? Unlikely, and that's unfortunate.

Get a non lethal weapon like a bat (lethal), knife (lethal), pepper spray (oh shit you actually got one)?

You ever use a bat or knife to kill a person? Way harder than squeezing a trigger, friend.

Which is why if you attack someone with those (and don't kill them, if you do it's just murder) you get charged with assault with a deadly weapon, friend? See how that plays out for you in court.

Though you are right even if you were far off base from my point, it is easier to defend yourself with a gun than a bat or a knife.

Again, you're wrong. It's easier to kill people with a gun than a bat or a knife. My point is that this case shouldn't be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text) because other avenues for dealing with the situation existed and were possible. In that case, I'd rather be charged with assault than murder.

No, read it again, I believe you'll find I did acknowledge that you were right, a gun is more effective than melee weapons if you have to defend yourself.

My point is that this case shouldn't be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text)

Strange interpretation of castle doctrine, mind sharing the relevant portion that would preclude this man from self defense? The whole thing about castle doctrine is exactly to shut people who say "you should have waited until he put the knife in your throat, then shoot him," like yourself, up. When someone breaks in, breaking a window, to gain unauthorized entry to your house, their reason for doing so is frankly irrelelvant, it is reasonable to defend yourself to your fullest ability and not put yourself in further danger to protect the invader. If you want to take the chance that it's a drunk kid not looking for violence, take it, but don't force others to incur undue risk, teach drunk college kids not to break and enter. He shouldn't be charged with either for defending his home.

And in my example of attacking people with them being still murder if you kill them and assault with a deadly weapon if you don't applies to all three weapons, gun, knife, and bat. That's what I'm saying, the law does not differentiate based on weapon used, they differentiate based on reasonable standards of force, and you can only use all three of those if the standard for deadly force has been reached. If not, you will be in trouble for escalating it using any one of those three weapons. Fortunately for you however, if someone did break in, you'd meet that standard, so you can kill them with any of the three.