462
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Kid accidentally enter wrong home this was Not Justified. Mother fuckers the law needs to be repealed and done over then.

Shooting someone just for entering or knocking on your door isn't an excuse to shoot to kill someone. Should at least give person a warning.

I hope that homeowner never finds peace again and better be glad it wasn't my kid.

He didn't just accidentally enter the wrong home, he was forcibly breaking into the home when he was shot. Even breaking a window to open the door from the inside.

Tragic as he was likely just intoxicated and confused, but understandable that the homeowner would use force to defend himself

While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door "and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob," at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window that struck Donofrio in his upper body, according to police

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Glad breaking and entering is now considered worth a death sentence.

This wasn't a punishment or sentence.

He was literally breaking through the door to enter the house.

What was the home owner supposed to do? Hope he became non-violent once he got in? Challenge him to a game of chess? Declare a set of non-lethal rules and duke it out?

The homeowner has a right to not be attacked in his own home ffs

[-] slapchop@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Idk. Maybe yell, “Hey. Fuck off” and call the police? If it is a drunk person, they probably embarrassingly realize it’s the wrong house. Or if they keep trying to get in after, then shoot?

Also the home owner wasn’t attacked. His window was.

You may want to read the article - they did call the police. Unfortunately it takes less time for someone to violently smash through a door than for the cops to arrive.

Interesting that you summize that they were apparently silent as this guy smashed their door

And, would you really play the odds that someone violently entering your house would suddenly have a moment of clarity when they entered? He was messed up enough to think shattering his own window was a viable option to get into his house.

[-] vinceman 5 points 1 year ago

But they never tried yelling at him, did they? Even after he had a firearm, the article says nothing about calling out with a warning first or anything. That seems insane to me.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

It also doesn't say they didn't. Are we going to just list off a bunch of things the article doesn't say?

[-] Godric@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Keep moving the goalposts!

[-] entropicshart@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago

Go read the article before you comment.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You have to judge it from the perspective if the person living there. They hear someone banging on their door, trying to get into the house, breaking the window and forcing their way in. They had absolutely no reason to believe this was a simple misunderstanding, and every reason to believe their life was in danger.

[-] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This wasn't a kid knocking at the wrong door in the middile of the day.

This was a 2 AM and break in where the guy busted a window to get at the door handle. This is WAY MORE than just knocking or a misunderstanding. I would agree that mistakes or even simple burglary don't deserve the death penalty, BUT... if he was aggressive enough to be smashing things in the middle of the night after banging on the door and windows, then what would he also be aggressive and mistaken about when he got inside? At a certain point being concerned for your own safety is legitmate and we crossed that line awhile ago.

[-] Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Hey doofus did you even read the article? He was breaking into the home. Maybe read the fucking article before spouting bullshit, next time.

[-] keeb420@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

He mightve thought he was trying to enter his house. However breaking a window and reaching for the lock is a good way to get either shot or arrested for b&o even if he is drunk as a skunk.

[-] xxkickassjackxx@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

Bro banged on the door and broke a window to try to get in. He was literally forcefully entering a locked house, he didn’t just wander into an unlocked door by mistake.

No telling what the kid was trying to do or would have done if he got in. Home owners have to assume the person trying to kick in the door and breaking a window is there to do harm. Justified self defense to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

By all accounts he thought he was entering his own home, thought he was breaking his own windows, etc. Seems to me like a little more dialog and this kid's still alive and a broken window is the worst part of the event. With castle doctrine laws the way they are mistakes and misunderstandings are much more likely to become fatal.

[-] RoboRay@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not being allowed to defend yourself until the intruder finishes breaking in to your home and attacks you simply means self-defense isn't allowed, because at that point you're probably already dead.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 7 points 1 year ago

The homeowners were awake, and calling the cops. Sounds like the kid was drunk to the point he wasn't engaging in conversation.

[-] tider06@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Not by all accounts. Specifically not by the accounts of the people who were inside the home that was getting broken into at 2am.

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In none of the accounts do they mention trying to speak with him before shooting. Just call 911 and wait with gun pointed towards door.

[-] tider06@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Which is what they did, until the intruder broke into the home through the window.

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You have a source on that? I've yet to see a reference to them attempting to communicate with anyone but 911.

[-] tider06@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As many sources that you have that say they didn't.

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I can't find anything saying the couple wasn't high on meth so I guess it's safe to assume they were.

[-] tider06@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's basically what you're doing.

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
462 points (100.0% liked)

News

22890 readers
3328 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS