Fatal shooting of University of South Carolina student who tried to enter wrong home 'justifiable,' police say
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."
Yeah, that's more than just trying to walk into the wrong house when you're blackout drunk, so I can see why they would consider it justified. But that's the word of the police, so we'll see if a different story comes out later.
We'll only ever hear one side of this story because the other witness is dead.
No, they have physical evidence, audio evidence which probably means camera or video doorbell and the kid died on the front porch of someone else's house. Seems like the story told itself. The simple explanation is he tried breaking into the wrong house thinking it was his own.
Not saying he deserved to die over his mistake, it's tragic and sad that the situation occurred.
Editing to add this from the article:
"evidence gathered at the scene, review of surveillance video that captures moments before the shooting, audio evidence, and witness statements."
Yikes. This is terrifying.
I feel bad for the owner who had to make a split second decision on what to do.
Because not much difference between rowdy drunk kid and a mentally deranged person. And making the wrong choice could mean your whole family is in danger.
20 years old is an grown man, not a kid.
Hard to imagine I'd not do the same thing if that happened to my house with my family home.
Would you have possibly tried, I dunno, yelling first? Seems like if you're already armed there wouldn't be much danger in say "WHAT THE FUCK ARE DOING?". It says nowhere in this story they actually tried stopping him, just that they phoned the cops, window broke, they shot him.
It also doesn't say if they didn't. We have no reason to believe that they didn't yell at him.
But yeah, if someone pounds on my door at 2am, then tries to force the door open, then smashes my window to try and unlock the door, I'm not waiting til they get inside to see if they are peaceful.
Not risking my life or the lives of my wife and kids on wishful thinking. It's a tragedy that the guy lost his life, it really is. But he didn't exactly leave a lot of wiggle room for the homeowners in the house he was invading.
What makes you think they didn't do that? Why is your default assumption that they just started firing?
Maybe the part where I read the article and it says nothing about an attempt to confront before shooting?
Ah yes, police are known to release all information immediately and also news articles are absolutely known to do the same. Thanks for reminding me!
You're taking the worst possible interpretation and running with it. I recommend not doing that
That's what I'm thinking. Call the police first?! That's a normal response. Not reach for a gun and shoot the person to death. And the student didn't get inside. I thought an intruder who could be killed was someone who made it inside. So anyone outside the door is fair game, even if they're knocking and banging?
They literally did that.
Breaking a window and then attempting to open the door is enough to justify killing in self defense under local laws, even if the intruder has not entered the building yet.
The article is specifically written to have a headline that implies someone got away with murder, to get traffic. The point of articles like this is to profit, not to inform.
Man shot while breaking and entering, is a much less profitable headline.
Before you get to the point of destroying your own property, you should have already double checked which unit you're at, whether a family member has a spare key, or whether someone you know can let you stay the night so you can call a locksmith in the morning. It's entirely reasonable for someone inside to think that it's an attempted break-in, so even if the guy just made a really bad choice that ended in tragedy, I don't blame the shooter for thinking it was a robbery, and not wanting to risk the supposed robber having a weapon. It's not an easy choice to make in that situation.
When I was in college I had this happen multiple times. In different apartments but they all looked similar.
Even had one dude peeing on the floor in my bathroom because I roommate was next door and didn’t lock the door. Dude was in the right apartment number, just off one building.
Even had a couple get aggressive and try to fight me.
Still, never shot anyone over it (and I was and am a gun owner. )
Don't you think it might've been different if it was your own home (instead of a rented dorm/apartment), and instead of roommates you had a wife and possibly other family members in the home?
This is true, and nuance is key.
But at the same time, at least in my college town, the houses on and around campus, certainly within 2 miles, were generally
Quite often used as rentals for college kids, VERY few families actually lived there, in fact i never remember seeing families in them.
Working class adults were more or less segregated further off campus, largely due to the riffraff.
So yes, it would be a bit different now as I do not live near a college campus. But if i did, and it was often that there were drunk college kids, the witching out after the bars let out would usually be times when ruckus was occuring. So situationally, i would be much less likely to use a gun in a case like that. I would likely have it on me while I assessed the situation but much less likely to use it.
Thats just me though. And FWIW i did live in houses off campus in my later years, and much of the same bullshit would occur. Maybe it was just a different time. I was not much of a partier, and took some hard sciences so often I was leaving the library when the drunks let out. And some of the shit they would pull....Lets just say I would never live near other college kids again.
It doesn't say if the people in the home ever told him to stop. Did he know there were people in there? If he did, why did he break the window?
He thought he was locked out of his home I'm sure.
Ouch. Yep, that's justifiable homicide
Not in my state. No deadly threat, no clear intent to commit a felony. Breaking in is not enough for precisely this reason: the person entering may have a mistaken claim of right.
Breaking and entering isn't a felony in your state????, huh...
Only if done with criminal intent. You know, you're allowed to break into your own house.
If you think it's your house and it's not, your mistaken claim of right negates the intent. You might assume your lock broke or something and your only intent is to get inside and take your drunk ass to sleep.
This is scenario where you wake up and find a trespasser asleep on your couch, you can't just murder them, even if you can see evidence that they broke the window to get in.
There is no duty to retreat in the home, but deadly force is still only authorized to counter deadly force.
In places authorizing deadly force to repel a felonious entry, the intent to commit crimes once inside supplies the justification for force. You cannot know the intention from the mere fact that they are breaking in. That's why you can't blindly fire through the door at someone trying to break your door in.
If the person ignores commands to stop, ignores warnings, threatens you, says something like "this is a robbery," or has a weapon, that's a different story; there, it's reasonable to infer their criminal intent.
What you're saying flies in the face of mens rea. The person who's state of mind is examined here is the homeowner. If they perceive their life is in danger they're allowed to use force. In your state there may be a duty to retreat but even there there are exigent circumstances.
Good luck convincing a jury this guy knew the person who had just smashed his window and was trying to unlock the door from the outside wasn't quite literally breaking and entering.
Nope. I've stated the rule correctly. Again, breaking and entering without more is insufficient justification for deadly force. Castle doctrine is inapplicable to mere breaking and entering. There has be something else, warnings or commands to stop that get ignored, something.
In my examples the homeowner has no basis to conclude that there is any threat.
The test is both subjective and objective. Otherwise, insane people could murder anyone that knocked on their door and claim they were in fear for their life.
By the way, there is no jury instruction on self-defense unless there's an offer of proof that the homeowner knew of facts upon which a reasonable person could conclude that deadly force was authorized. Someone breaking your window, without more, is not a threat of deadly force against you, even if you are incredibly fragile and emotional.
Obviously you're wrong about castle doctrine because this guy isn't being charged.
Yeah some backwards country sheriff, ignoring law, bastardizing castle doctrine.
What if this guy throws an empty beer bottle through the window and it strikes an occupant or uses the wood splitting axe on the front lawn to smash the door frame? Does the nature of the entry matter at all? Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand. I had a similar conversation down this line of thought with a friend who is a cop in a state without castle. I left that conversation somewhat bewildered by how much an intruder can get away with in proximity to my person before I am legally able to use or even brandish a weapon on them.
Beer bottle, no. No deadly threat. Person is still outside.
If they have an axe in their hand they have a weapon, you can infer their intent to do crimes once inside. No question as to reasonableness of fear for safety. I'd still warn a bunch of times and command them to stop, and I'd only shoot if it was clear they were coming inside.
The thing to remember is that it's all evaluated from the standpoint of self defense of your person, not property. Deadly force is never authorized to protect mere property.
I guess where I have the hardest part with this is around the “infer” — I personally feel it’s a bit too much to ask an occupant to attempt to read an unfolding situation clearly, accurately, and quickly enough when things are going down in real-time. “Someone is forcing entry into my dwelling, but do they intend to harm me or simply watch Netflix with me?”
I guess I just disagree with the law, but then again my mind always goes to the most unsettling scenarios and probably not those that are statistically most likely. For instance, when you wrote elsewhere about waking up and finding an intruder in your home asleep on your couch, my mind immediately went to: “Ok, but what if I wake up and find an intruder fully alert, not touching anything, but standing in the doorway of my daughter’s bedroom and staring at her as she sleeps?” The amount of time and the element of surprise that I would lose to correctly deduce this person's intentions (assuming they wouldn’t try to deceive me, which is a whole ‘nother rabbit hole) could mean the difference between life and death/injury, given how easy and quick it is to kill someone with a concealed weapon. And though I suppose the same could be said of anywhere outside my home, too, I have to believe that I am statistically in more danger from someone who has forced entry into my home than someone just passing by me at the supermarket.
By the way, I fully recognize that what you’re saying is the correct interpretation of the law and tracks with what my LEO friend told me. I just don’t like, haha!
Cheers!
Thank you for recognizing. It sounds complicated but it's really not, and I think you do like it, without fully realizing it.
To your point, you can jump to reasonable conclusions without having to be a mind reader.
On finding an alert intruder, you give clear commands. Should be able to be pretty sure of their intent pretty quickly after that.
Sometimes, there's nothing you can do, and you get murdered in your sleep, very rare though. One thought there is to outsource the job of issuing commands and waking you up to a burglary alarm. If you wake up to a stranger who is not warded off by a blaring alarm, that tells you a lot about what they're doing.
If I roll out of bed to the sounds of someone banging on my door, trying my doorknob, then breaking a window to get in - I'm probably going to believe that shots will start flying through the door in my direction if I confront them at that point, and/or that they intend to harm me or my family, not that they will politely go away if I ask them to, especially in the fog of having just awakened.
I'm not a gun owner, but if I had one, I doubt I'd consider a warning in that case. Without the escalation to smashing my window I'm likely to handle it differently.
Same thing happens in the middle of the day while I'm wide awake, maybe I interpret it differently. Maybe.
I agree that deadly force isn't appropriate to protect property. I don't agree that protecting property is what was likely going through this person's head.
Okay, well, it's justifiable homicide in South Carolina
Oh shit something very similar to this happened to my mom once. She’s an older woman who lives alone and terrified of everything. Yes, she owns a gun.
One night ~ 2-3 am a man knocked on her door and demanded to be let in. She’s terrified, grabs the gun. He moved around to different doors, knocking and banging and yelling to be let in. He started shaking the door handles. My mom called 911 and was hiding in a bathroom. They asked her to just wait, police were on the way.
Finally she goes out, sees the guy at a window, and pointed the gun at him…but the gun has a laser pointer when you squeeze the handle. So she screamed back that the red dot on his chest was about to be where she was going to shoot him.
He ran off. Police show up, say they found the kid - 20 - drunkenly stumbling around the neighborhood. The bar had just closed and he thought he was at his friend’s house. A week later he sent her a $20 gift card to a local restaurant with a note that said “Thank you for not shooting me.”
The cops said if she had shot him, she would have been legally within her rights.
Agree or disagree with any or all of this, I’m sorry for the family of the person who was killed. It’s just a terrible situation all around.
The headline made me instantly rage (as intended). Reading the article made me reconsider. The real answer is to not have guns in the hands of the public. But then only criminals will have guns. Stfu.
Did you just tell yourself to STFU?
If the public wasn't allowed to have guns and this guy did turn out to be a home invader, what would you say then?
I remember reading that statistically it isuch more likely that you kill a friend or family member with a gun than a home invader while trying to defend you're home. Instead of worrying about hypothetical 'what ifs' that are very unlikely to happen maybe we should stay anchored in reality.
I'd introduce them to my baseball bat. Repeatedly. Then call the police.
I think I heard on the radio that the homeowner was an old man, so I doubt he'd be capable of using a baseball bat against a college athlete. But I can't find an article that says anything about his age.
So, you don't want to kill them with a gun, you'd rather get up close and personal and bludgeon their face until they're unrecognizable? Baseball bats are a deadly threat too, go attack someone with one and watch how fast you get an AWDW charge.
I'd take being shot over being repeatedly bludgeoned with a baseball bat, personally.
Look at that 100%justified use. If only it legal to defend yourself where I live like this. That would be great.
Canada?
Relevant:
Under those circumstances, I don't blame the homeowner for using a gun to defend himself and the other female resident. This guy was literally breaking into their home. If it had been me, I would have been terrified and very thankful to have a gun on hand for defense. I'm sure a lot of people here will protest to the shooting, but I would urge them to really think about what they would have done in such a situation. I don't know what Donofrio's reasons were for trying to break into the home, but they hardly matter; the fact is, he did try, and the residents of the home had every reason to think they were in danger. If we had multi-shot stun guns that could reliably incapacitate an intruder, I'd say he should have used that rather than a lethal weapon, but current stun guns aren't that reliable and only fire once before needing to be reloaded. That a life was lost is sad, but I agree that no criminal charges should be filed in this instance. However, I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the Castle doctrine on which this is based, as I'm not intimately familiar with it, but the general notion of being able to use lethal force to defend oneself against a home intruder I do agree with on principle.
I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It's too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that's completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).
I actually don't hate castle doctrine tbh, which is commonly confused with the more controversial "stand your ground." I frankly do not see "a duty to retreat" from one's own occupied dwelling in the event of an intruder, in my opinion that duty dissipates the second forcible entry has been made to my home.
The common thing I hear is "they usually just want your TV," but A) The best way to steal a TV is to push a cart, trust me, especially if you still have a 24hr walmart, and B) if you have to rob people of their TV who are also probably living paycheck to paycheck, at least have the common decency to not do so while they're home and scare the shit out of them. For all they know you could be a rapist or a murderer even if just out of opportunity or "no witnesses," even by accident with poor gun safety from robbers. Tbh it's hard for me to agree that some poor family should have to flee their own home or hide in a closet if someone else decides to enter it unlawfully.
That's a valid statement.
It also demonstrates a wider problem: gun proliferation is so incredibly high that the default assumption is always going to be "that person might have a gun," and this will always prompt a much lowered threshold to use one's own gun in return.
Exactly this. I am from Central Europe and if someone tried to break into my home, I wouldnt assume by
Renaultdefault that they have a weapon. Because burglars here aren't armed.Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)
Oh shit
And are your rapists armed?
According to most stories in the newspapers, no.
Then an unarmed intruder can still be a serious threat.
It doesn't really matter if they have a gun or not from the perspective of someone who's home is being broken into. Any physical violence is dangerous and can result in death. People breaking into homes aren't getting shot because they "might have a gun". They're getting shot because it's unreasonable to expect a victim to accept any further risk by trying to talk the aggressor down or subdue them some other way once they've broken in.
No disagreement. I'm a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won't solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.
You know that guns aren't the only way to hurt people, right? People can be killed quite easily
No, I did not know that.
That's amazing.
I can’t tell, did they announce at all or just fired the moment he broke the window??
Surely this could have been avoided by asking questions first…. What the fuck
Idk man, I'm liberal as hell and even I have problems with that line of logic. Man's smashing up their house, putting myself in the invadees shoes I'd be worried about warning the home invader(s) and making them use their weapons.
I'm not saying I think everything is fine and dandy in this situation, mfs are using guns way to much in America. But since the occupants had a gun for self defense AND their home was being broken into, I find it hard to blame them for defending themselves.
Same, progressive who believes people have the right to defend their house once someone is clearly trying to force their way in.
I'm uncomfortable with that loophole only because of you'll recall, several years back a black lady knocked on a stranger's for because her car broke down in front of that house and got ventilated without discussion.
That's wack as shit, and I have to wonder how police would determine a frame-up if that particular trashbag had broken the window to make it seem like the lady was breaking in.
Only solution that comes to mind is a ring-like device which only records to local storage.
Absolutely, I think there should be certain objective things that have to happen before "fearing for your life" is a valid defence.
Someone breaking your window after trying to enter forcefully through your door is where I start thinking it's okay to use a deadly weapon to defend yourself.
Someone knocking on your door (regardless of the time of day) is not a reasonable situation to fear for your life, at least to the extent where you attack the person.
I don't know the specific case you're talking about, but that isn't actually the law, that is a failure of our justice system, the shooter could have gotten convicted for that (based off your description I should add, if I'm missing details that would exhonerate the homeowner, like an outside gate already having been breached, then that's another matter). In my area, you are required to have signs of forced entry before you can defend yourself in this manner, and if someone shot through the door my DA would certainly try the case, but then the jury can decide if "guilty or not guilty," and that's how you end up with both false convictions and "false releases" like the one you mentioned. Unfortunately however I'm unaware of a more fair system than the one we have, but I'm open to ideas.
Could have been avoided? Maybe. But at some point the onus is on the person breaking into your house to...idk, not do that? Like there's a spectrum between what you can do, what you should do and what you have to do and asking some questions first is certainly something you can do. Maybe even something you should do, but protecting your family from someone who is breaking into your house is something you have to do. This isn't Ralph Yarl who got popped twice for standing on the porch, or those girls who were still in the car and backing out of someone's driveway when they got clipped. Dude tried to break into the house by kicking the door in, that didn't work, so he tried a different way of breaking into the house which would have worked had he been left to it.
I'm usually pretty firmly against preemptive violence as self defense but this seems rather cut and dry to me. I would have done the exact same thing the homeowner did here, and I think that it's doubly good that the homeowner wasn't charged.
I love not living in america
It's glorious.
The U.S. spends a tremendous amount of its energy on paranoia, checks and balances, and being remarkably resistant to large-scale changes of the status quo, particularly with respect to rights attendant to private property.
In the current period of bullet trains, wind farms, and unisex bathrooms, it is incredibly inconvenient, even dangerous in its own right. It looks like an operating system bug, but only because it is holding up a feature that the real owners of America don't like advertised.
There is a reason the dollar is still the global reserve currency- because the entire system was set up to make private property despot-and-revolution-resistant, and the smart money knows it.
The world is heading into a major demographic shift that is going to hit everybody's social model like a brick through a plate glass window- too many pensioners and not enough taxpayers, and no one has built the roomba that cooks and cleans for grandma yet. We will get to watch a preview in China and Russia quite soon. The pitchforks are going to come out again, and politicians will blow with the wind.
But if you own land/stuff in America, you will still own land/stuff in America.
I'm not saying it is right, or just. It is simply some useful perspective on what such an awkward, irritating, distributed, recursive system might have been designed for, because it certainly wasn't designed for speed.
The term "storm canvas" comes to mind, and with it a reminder to keep an eye to windward.
This is such a non sequitur argument lol
I don't know one single government that is in favor of upending property rights, the exception being newborn Communist nations. Those same communist nations, after the Vanguard die out, stop changes to property rights. The US isn't different from other nations. Even China (today) is resistant to changes to the property rights structure.
What does this mean? Like, what is the point here? The US is currently reinventing their electrical grid, reshoring manufacturing, and is investing record amounts of money in itself to do so. The US carbon emissions have already peaked and they are slowly declining every year.
Again, totally random argument you just tossed in here. The US dollar is the reserve currency because every other currency is not as appealing. Case in point: we increase the interest rate as global inflation sets in and all other nations' currencies immediately depreciate against the dollar. China has to have currency exchange controls because people would so prefer to hold USD.
Where do you come up with this stuff? This is some straight up fox news replacement BS. The US is 15% immigrants and is one of the only developed nations to have a relatively healthy population pyramid. If anything, this argument you've made is actually PRO America, ANTI rest of the world.
The CCP owns all Chinese property and no one can take it from them. The German government cannot expropriate property. Filipinos, Malaysians, Columbians, Egyptians, Norwegians, South Koreans... they are entitled to property rights.
Property rights are not uniquely American and it's weird you think property rights are what makes America uniquely bad.
There won't be any previews in Russia.
Just for curiosity's sake, if it was the middle of the night and someone started pounding on your front door and yelling, then tried to kick your door in, then broke your window, reached in and started trying to unlock your door from the inside, what's the civilized non-American response to that?
You engage them in conversion, explain to them simply they are at the wrong house, and keep pushing that point
Source: I had this situation happen to me at uni, explained to the side he had the wrong house, showed him the house number, and he calmly left.
Cool, cool. Now, what if the intruder isn't a drunk college kid but someone looking to do you harm? You open the door, he pushes inside because he already knew that he wanted to do harm to the people inaide this house number, and then what?
Not everyone is a drunk kid.
Phone the police, and then shout back asking what he wanted.
What's the average police response time in your area? Is it less than 30 seconds? Because that's how long it would be until dude is physically in your home.
wow, you're so afraid of people
Literally from the article:
Well, maybe they handle mental illness better where you are (seriously, I bet they do). But here, we let them walk around untill they kill someone. So that is who you are protecting yourself from. And there are a lot of them just waiting to snap.
my husband is mentally ill and you have no idea how offensive you are.
I like your implication, here, that all mentally ill people are the same
In response to the comment that says mentally ill people walk around until they kill someone
There are all sorts of mentally ill people. I am referring to the ones who get arrested for violence and released over and over... not all mentally ill people.
Goddamn, the United States really is a shithole country, isn't it? It's obvious that shooting was the homeowner's first resort, because this was a drunk guy who thought that it was his own house. Any sign that it was not, like lights going on, or yelling, would have at least made him pause in confusion.
But yeah, Americans be like killing somebody before even issuing a threat is totally justified.
From the article, it's clear that their first resort was to call the police when he was banging and kicking on the door. The woman was on the phone with the police when he broke the window and attempted to open the door through the broken pane.
Hush, your ruining the narrative.
Sounds like a justified shooting. If it were legal where iived I'd shoot at that point.
Drunk guy who broke the window trying to get in. Maybe it wasn't clear this person was probably harmless and they panicked. Not sure why the people asleep in their home world be expected to flash the lights or whatever you are thinking is a normal middle of the night response to someone breaking into your home.
IDK, I don't like guns for this exact reason. Too easy to end a life out of panic. But the drunk has the bulk of the responsibility here IMO.
I am sorry but .. if I am at home with my wife and kids and drunk stranger aggressively bangs and kicks the door, doesn't stop when asked, smashes a window and reaches in to get in - I will probably also have my gun ready if the police doesn't show up fast enough. Some people get super aggressive when drunk - some get confused and silly. There is definitely a difference.
Not American, I live in Europe. No I am not right wing.
None of the articles I've seen have said whether the residents said anything before shooting. If they didn't, they absolutely should have.
I just assumed that's something a normal person would do after reading they also called 911 already. Might be wrong information tho.
Any other developed country and there wouldnt be a death involved.
Genuinely curious if you had someone smashing your window and trying to enter your house forcefully what your response would be.
Phone the police and tell him to fuck off? Maybe hit their arm with a bat or something. If I was alone I could even just leave. Not immediately execute them.
Well where I live there aren't nearly as many guns so the person breaking in would be less likely to have a deadly weapon and it would be a bit less risky to just call the police and hide, or comply with the (assumed) robber, or I'd feel like I'd have a better chance with using a blunt weapon like a bat to protect myself and drive them off, which would be less likely to kill someone. But where I live there are also a lot less robberies in general.
Doesn't guarantee nobody would have died if the same thing happened in a place with less gun violence, but it might have reduced the chances. Even if people get into the same kinds of confrontations, if there aren't guns involved the chances of everyone surviving a violent encounter goes up by a significant percentage. Less guns in a country over-all means less chances for a conflict to have a gun involved.
I mean if I take a swing at someone's head with a baseball bat I'm probably just as likely to kill as I would be by shooting them. I will say baseball bat to the head probably hits less since it would probably render you unconscious immediately.
You'd be surprised. While one hit can kill, concussion/brain injury without death is generally more common from a single hit. Usually it takes multiple hits to guarantee killing someone, and it's harder to aim if you're not like, a baseball player, than most people expect. You're more likely to get a glancing blow, even assuming you catch the other person by surprise. The type of bat can make a difference in how likely it is to kill from a first hit as well.
Yeah I guess that's all true. Either way I personally would prefer a gun to a baseball bat for self defense for the simple fact that it puts me in less danger than attacking my attacker with a melee weapon. There admittedly isn't much in my house that is worth my life but apparently the person breaking in values my things more than their own life.
I dont have any guns so probly hiding and calling cops. But also I dont live in any other developed country, Im not blaming the homeowner for fearing for his life in the country with more guns than people. If we were somewhere else, not only would the homeowner not have a gun, anyone trying to break in would be much less likely to have one.
probably depends on if guns are involved or not.
This is such an annoying answer. I've had a strange man enter my home unannounced. I remember standing just behind a wall with intent to stab him with the knife I had because if someone breaks into your house you don't assume a good time. Even without guns strangers are dangerous. That maintenance guy was seriously lucky I happen to recognize him in that split sec and stopped before stabbing him in the chest.
I'm American and I've never worried about guns. They aren't as common as people think in a lot of areas. Mostly we have a few yahoo's with a shitton of guns and most people with zero. I've still been in several situations where I felt unsafe without guns even being a consideration. If this dude was doing all that at my house, I'd call the police and then wait with a knife like I did with that stupid maintenance guy I almost stabbed who should have known better.
That maintenance guy is an idiot. I worked maintenance for years and you never enter someone's home without ringing or knocking and waiting for a reply (even if they say the home will be empty). When you do unlock the door you open it slowly while calling out, "Hello! Maintnance!" I'd say 30% of the time someoine was there when I was assured the property would be empty. Kid skipping school, home sick and forgot our appoinment, etc.
You are correct. That's why I didn't assume maintenence guy, but instead rapist.
How did they enter your home? Did he have a key? Had you called for maintenance?
He's definitely an idiot.
Nope. He had a key, I guess he used it? IDK I just heard my fucking door open. He was there to fix something or other that was causing issues with the apartment below Mr. It was like 2PM which I guess is why he didn't announce himself, but yeah he almost died.
How do you know that? Are there actually stats on that? I'm a left-leaning gun owner, and I'm careful to avoid talking about guns around most people to avoid unnecessary conflict. The people who make it their entire personality are a very vocal minority.
Because I've lived in shitty areas with actual drug dealers and BS like that. Less people have guns than you might imagine. Maybe it's different in nowhere USA, but in urban shithole, USA and Middle class suburbia that's about what I've found. People have like 3+ guns or none at all. I guess it's possible all my friends are just hiding this from me for some reason and in my hometown I just happen to know all the people who shoot guns, but honestly it's been rare that I've seen people with just one gun. It's not that I've never seen it. My cousin's husband owns exactly one gun.
I don't think there's any way to get stats, but I think that the US has more guns than people lends some credibility to this idea.
So it's all anecdotal, and based on what people tell you? Like I said, gun nuts are a very vocal minority.
And I've lived in a slum too. An apartment in the building I lived in was basically a trap house, a neighbor was stabbed on his way home from work, my gf's vehicle was stolen, my vehicle was vandalized, and someone tried to enter my apartment because he was drunk and confused. And after all of that, I still have no idea how many of my neighbors had guns because most sensible gun owners don't advertise the fact.
::gasp:: Actual drug dealers??
To be fair, here's the thing. If you replace a gun with a knife, while that doesn't erase the chance of death by any means, it does lower the chance of death significantly. Because despite what a lot of people might think, in a fight, you're a lot more likely to survive if your attacker has a knife than you would if your attacker has a gun. If you hadn't recognized your maintenance guy right away and attacked him, then he'd still be better off with you wielding a knife than if you'd been wielding a gun instead.
And in a country with less guns, both you and a potential robber are less likely to have guns. Maybe you would use a knife, but clearly not everyone would, and saying "there's not as many as you'd think in a lot of areas areas" is all fine and well, but the statistics show that the US has an absolutely mind boggling amount of guns per capita compared to any other country. The US literally has more guns than people. In other countries, it's not just in some areas where guns are less common, it's every area, and most have less than even the areas in US's that have less guns. Countries that are literally at war have less guns per capita than the US does.
Obviously that doesn't mean you'll never be in danger without any guns around, but you will generally be in less danger over-all, and even when you do get into danger you will still be less likely to die.
Gunshots are actually less deadly than knife wounds btw.
That's not true, gunshot wounds actually have a significantly lower survival rate than stab wounds. I can provide some studies on the topic if you're interested.
Can you support that statement...?
Source?
Lot more likely to shoot somebody before you have a chance to stop vs stabbing them.
People don't just drop when they get stabbed and a stronger person can pretty easily take a knife from a weaker one. If you're trying to defend yourself from a real attacker with a knife you're probably going to have a bad time.
this uh...this story just kind of reinforces how bad of an idea guns are, cus you would have killed a guy who also wasnt trying to kill you.
Depending on the gun they maybe wouldn't have killded him, even if they hit them. Also if you are already jumping at someone with a knife, it's not that much easier to stop than a gunshot.
Yes it is. Take a look at gun homicides vs knife. Guns are more deadly and we have the deaths to prove it.
Stab wounds are far less deadly, and far more treatable compared to gunshot wounds.
You're right, and there are lots of studies backing this up. Even if you compare similar wounds like neck wounds from stabbing vs getting shot, and getting stabbed in the heart vs being shot in the heart. Stab wound victims are much more likely to survive than gunshot wound victims.
I'd leave.
Going to call bullshit on that.
The drunk kid smashed a window and kicked the door repeatedly. This wasn't a quiet kid accidentally wandering into a room.
Hard to shoot someone who's made an honest mistake when you don't have a gun...
Honest mistake ain’t busting in a window tho. I’ve locked myself out of my own house before and I’ve never went “I’ll just break a window to get in”
I’d be terrified if someone was trying to break into my house at 2am.
You hear stories about people with dementia doing this all the time. Guess they don't deserve to live anymore either.
The ex did once. I came home and had to cover a basement window with plywood.
It's also hard to shoot someone who hasn't made an honest mistake and is actually breaking in specifically to do you harm, when you don't have a gun....so your comment is total nonsense.
Maybe we should just stop shooting people all together.
If someone intends to harm me or immediately threaten my life, I'm shooting them. There is no moral or ethical argument you can make that will invalidate that. I consider the right of self-defense to be an inalienable right even if that requires lethal force.
I wouldn’t call breaking and entering into the completely wrong home at 2 am “an honest mistake…”
One of the presidents of the US did it regularly and he never got shot for it.
The kids only real crime was being too drunk to understand what was going on.
When you choose to get drunk, you've also agreed to accept the responsibility for your future drunken actions.
Which US president would break into people’s homes? Sorry, I am unaware here…
And no, he was breaking and entering too. Even if that was not his intention.
Also hard to shoot somebody breaking in to your home with violent intentions when you don't have a gun.
And the only way to find out what the intruder's intentions are is to wait until it's potentially too late to defend yourself.
Just make dishonest mistakes and you'll get voted as president.
This is the US mentality. Yeah, kid was very dumb, kid was in the wrong. Kid should probably be arrested and spend some time in jail to learn his lesson. Nope, death penalty.
People are so damned anxious to use their damned guns
They are. The amount of people who confidently say they'd shoot before attempting to communicate has me terrified; like they want a reason to escalate the situation.
Yeah, the states has the same accidents as anywhere else in the world, but they sprinkle a little gun into the mix.
I'm in a developing country and such things don't happen here. Some months back an upstairs neighbour of mine tried to enter into my house when i was inside. He was trying his key and then rang the doorbell and i opened it and he was very confused. Then he looked at my house and realised he was on the wrong floor, said sorry and went away. These things happen if all the apartments look the same. No one needs to die for such small blunders. What's more disturbing is the amount of people here justifying shooting the kid because he broke a window and was forcing his way inside. They don't realise they wouldn't have to fear other people so much if there were no guns available in the first place. I'm sure I'll get a lot of replies that gangsters don't obey rules and what not but isn't that the same in every other country without guns? Maybe Americans like to kill people a lot. No wonder their entire country runs off war and destruction.
Home invasions happen in countries that have strict gun laws. I've lived in a bad apartment complex (one apartment was a trap house, a neighbor was stabbed on his way home from work, several vehicles were stolen and mine was vandalized), and a neighbor tried to get into my apartment late one night. I didn't own a gun at the time, but I absolutely would have stabbed him with a kitchen knife if he had broken a window and stuck his hand inside. Instead, I asked him if he was okay and explained that he was at the wrong apartment.
In this case, the person was literally breaking into the house, broken window, reaching for the doorknob. The homeowner had every reason to think their home was being invaded. And given how violent crime can get in the states, unfortunately shooting first in such a situation does make logical sense.
The situation sucks, but this case might be more on the system than the shooter.
You don't need a gun to kill someone, it's creepy enougth to assume the intruder has 'just' a big knife
That type of thing happens in the US as well. It doesn't ALWAYS end with a gun. I'd say most of the time it doesn't.
This person broke a window though and was actively forcing themselves into the home. That's a pretty big difference from "trying a key and ringing the doorbell."
It's always going to be a judgement call, for a different intruder theirs would've been the right call. It's not even about guns, there are knives, drugs, etc. They're all relevant and the kinds of people that are breaking windows can be dangerous.
I forget all the details but a former neighbors son had an extremely traumatic experience when he was out with a trainee as a paramedic and a guy hopped up on some concoction of drugs incapacitated him (I think by throwing him against the wall) and then the dude spun around and beat the trainee's skull in with some object.
Just because you haven't heard of it... doesn't mean it doesn't happen in your country, but I hope you're right. Idealistically you're definitely right, this sort of thing never should happen, but sometimes there's no good answer; you just do the best you can with the information and situation you're in.
The American responses are shocking, no wonder they have a mass shooting near enough every day
The guy was trying to break in, having smashed a window and was working and lock from the inside. He wasn't just drunkenly banging on the door.
😭 Some of us are trying. None of our political parties care enough yet. I don't know how to make them care.
Keep trying, it's good to be reminded that there are people like yourself who don't think this should be normal
Arson (50% jk)
They tried that already, during the George Floyd riots. It just further emboldened each side.
If someone is breaking into your home, you should defend yourself and your family with whatever means is available. The amount of people here saying you should have a polite conversation or comply with the robber's demands (even if that demand is to harm you) is bizarre.
No wonder Americans are so infatuated with the second amendment!
usa_anthem_kazoo_earrape.mp3playing in the background. This shit is abnormal in the rest of the world.Good - one less idiot walking the earth.
He wasn’t “trying to enter” he was literally breaking into the home.
I would’ve let off more than one shot at that point.
A college student gets drunk and makes a mistake, and you gleefully execute him for being an "idiot". He doesn't get a trial by a jury of his peers. He doesn't get to explain his story. A frightened home-owner hopped up on adrenaline and his righteous belief he can blow away anyone who scares him just executes him on the spot. That's a terrible system of justice.
Americans are nuts.
Makes a mistake? That's one hell of a mistake, he was litterally breaking and entering. Just because he was drunk is he no longer responsible for his actions? He chose to go get shitfaced and then he went and tried to break into a home when the residents were home in a castle doctrine state. The only more reliable method of getting shot that I can think of is walking around the woods in a deer costume durring hunting season.
Also how about we stop victim blaming the home owner here. Yes it would have been better if the guy had lived. There's no question there. But the residents did exactly what they should have with the information they had at their disposal. They called the cops first but, when the dude broke the window and it became aparent that the police would not get there in time, they did what they needed to do to protect themselves while minimizing the chance of them being harmed. Letting a clearly agitated and potentially armed assailant actually enter their home just on the off chance that assailant was actually friendly would have been beyond stupid. The homeowner not mag dumping on the guy actually shows far more restraint than we typically even see from our police.
So you wouldn't have tried talking first? Like they didn't either? Seems nuts to me
Spoken like someone who's never feared for their life or more importantly, feared for their partner's life.
Well, I guess South Carolina is going on my list of places that are too dangerous to ever visit.
Probably a good idea if you tend to drunkenly break into homes in the middle of the night
I don't, but I also don't want people to think they can just shoot me with no repercussions.
No one does. There's some relevant context here that you seem to be ignoring.
I don't think it's nearly as relevant as you seem to think it is.
You're missing punctuation after the word think.
So clever.
for all the non-Americans, here are the things you don't understand about why we say it was justified.
Mental illness is rampant here. The high productivity expectations have a serious toll on people. There aren't enough doctors to be even close to handle the scope of it. Many doctors offices are getting bought up by large companies who can and do pick the most lucrative clients.
Our justice system releases mentally ill people who are clearly dangerous because they haven't committed a big enough crime YET.
And people don't look out for one another much anymore. Combined with a misguided sense of independence, drunks are left to do things that friends in other countries would put a stop to.
This is why we fear random people, this is why drunk people manage to get into circumstances uncommon elsewhere. This is why we say the shooting was justified. We all think about how badly it could have gone if he didn't shoot, and it wasn't just a drunk guy at the wrong house.
As an American I'm thoroughly unconvinced
Same, this sounds like what the homeowner/killer is going to be telling himself the next day to rationalize it (if he even thinks about it that deeply).
what in all of this makes you think the homeowner is a cold blooded killer who doesn't give a second thought about killing. Like where does that even come from. I mean its possible, but seems pretty unlikely.
America is a big place. Maybe your area is better. Or maybe you aren't aware of it in your area. But the number of neighbors in my area who have had mentally ill people (probably homeless) come to thier door sayimg they live there or what not is pretty high. And I am out in the suburbs. Combine that with the yearly stories of a mentally ill person with a history of random violence arrests who kills someone and it's no suprise people fear. A large part of the population lives in areas like this or in cities. But not everyone for sure.
All the more reason why you guys shouldn't have so many guns.
true, but that ship has sailed.
If enough people want it changed, it can be changed, right?
have you seen American politics? Having the majority vote doesn't even win the presidency. And all these anti abortion laws recently... all the polls show a majority don't want them. The government works for business, not the people. If enough corporations want it to change, then it can be changed.
We can agree that it's not going to change soon, yeah