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.”
Personal accountability. Don’t enter a mental state where you can’t identify your own house.
Should I just allow someone to kick my door in?
“banged and kicked on the door” ≠ “kick door in”
He was drunk and frustrated. He was likely kicking the base of the door trying to be loud enough to wake a roommate to open the door since he couldn’t get his key to work and was confused. Castle doctrine should not have applied here as he was likely not an obvious threat. The shooter could probably have talked with him through the door or, heaven forbid, actually opened the door and talked with him to figure out what was going on and helped the obviously inebriated young man home.
Castle doctrine is intended for when someone is making an obvious threat with deadly intent. The way it is being implemented here you can shoot a proselytizing baptist dead on your porch because they were there to attack your soul.
He did more than make noise:
Regardless of what you think about gun laws, I think the resident had good reason to be concerned for his safety.
Yes, my only issue is what lead up to this point. Once he broke the glass, maybe I can see it being justified. But did he call the police? Did he actually talk to the guy or stand inside and ready himself to shoot him? Was there a non-lethal option? Could he have broken his wrist by pistol-whipping?
Regardless of your stance on fun laws, I am sure we can agree that there have been far too many people shot through a front door this year to be comfortable. There was the girl who was selling Girl Scout cookies, the woman who was trying to deal with a neighbor who had violently assaulted her children with malice and a weapon, the guy who was lost and stopped to ask for directions. The list goes on. This country is founded on the idea that you can walk up to someone’s front door and knock on it. Barring posted signage to the contrary, it is a universal right of anyone to be able to walk up a driveway and knock on the door without fear of reprisal. Castle doctrine has been getting applied too broadly in recent years and needs to be reigned in. It needs to have reasonableness applied as to it being a last resort. It should also not extend beyond the castle walls. There were many reasonable actions that could have been taken in this case that obviously were not. A non-lethal shot? Hell, even a warning shot would have likely been enough to warn a drunk off. I am not saying that this is murder, or even manslaughter, but a life was unnecessarily snuffed out. This needs to be something. This idea that you can shoot someone on your front porch is reprehensible.
Removed by mod
Problem is, if he is trying to hurt you, you’ve just given him access to do so easily so that you can “make sure” he actually wanted to hurt you. And maybe you have the privelege to do dangerous shit like that, maybe you’re 7’8" 300lbs and have adamantium bones, but some of us do not. Some of us are 5’6" 150lbs soaking wet, some of us are women, some of us are handicapable, not all of us are as priveleged as you to be able to fight off 1-5 guys with unknown weapons (even just knives) singlehandedly so they can brag about it, personally I’m incapable of doing that and I don’t want to put myself in harms way simply because the guy breaking into my house might have the wrong house or might want to rape and murder me in quiet seclusion.
No, but shooting them is an extreme reaction. I’m a woman alone. If this would have happened to me, I’d have barricaded the door, fled to another part of the house (there’s more than one door in), put more barricades in between us and made absolutely sure I screamed the neighbourhood awake. Once there’s more people to subdue him, the main problem is solved. Damages are to be covered by insurance. Now if he carried a gun, that’s an entirely different matter. Still, I don’t own a gun, never will, don’t think I’ll ever need one. Once a culture sees “shooting someone” as a first solution, things are down the drain imho.
So rely on other people to help. Ever hear of the story of Kitty Genovese? Dozens of people either saw her getting stabbed or heard her screams and nobody intervened or called the cops. Thanks, but no thanks.
They were already on the phone with cops. I’m just buying time until they arrive. And he’s a drunk, as far as we know not a murderer. My first instinct is not to kill anybody who has a slightly bad day.
Fight or flight. Some people run while others don’t. You can run all you want and assume they are drunks I have seen the darker side of humanity and will not assume the person doesn’t mean harm. Hindsight it’s easy to say oh he was just a drunk having a bad day. But when it’s 2am and they break a window to open the door, my first thought isn’t “this guy must be drunk”
Where the fuck were his friends? Sounds like he was blackout drunk. No one was sober enough to look out for him?
Folks, if you friend gets this smashed, don’t let them wander off by themselves. All manner of bad could happen. Simply falling in a bad enough spot may be enough. People have been known to drown in their own vomit.
If we did a better job of looking out for each other, it wouldn’t come to these shitty situations in the first place.
Regardless of how drunk you are, you should not get shot for a silly mistake which endangered no one. Gun laws and this obsession of defending private property in ALL cases is simply stupid. Losing your life because you got drunk is stupid
It wasn’t a “silly” mistake.
I’ve been drunk plenty of times, but I’ve never smashed through a window and reached through broken glass to try to open a locked door. Most drunk people know better than to literally break into a house.
You’re different than other people? I thought we were all the same.
Most people are just like me. A few make drastically different choices.
Do you routinely physically break open doors when you’re drunk?
So when people kick in your door, smash windows, reach in to open it, would you call 911? If so, why? Maybe because you fear for your life? Hope you don’t have a family that expects you to protect them.
Well technically, calling 911 on a break in is just outsourcing the shooting, so imo he can’t even call the men with guns to use the guns he doesn’t think should be used.
Exactly! All the gun haters, which are usually also Police haters are real quick to judge gun owners, until something terrible happens, then their excuse for everything is call the guys with guns. Which of course ends with them crying when it comes to using them. Like any cop WANTS to shoot and kill a person.
TBF I’m sure some do, the job does seem to attract some unsavory characters sometimes. Most in my area are alright tbh but we have a guy or two that seem like they’re just itching for the chance and they’re so mad that you have any rights.
Still though, yeah, outsourcing violence because you’re afraid to defend yourself is one thing, but taking the option away from others is another thing entirely. My gripe is that in either case the potential for violence exists and to persecute one for doing it themselves vs outsourcing it to the police is a wishy washy bullshit stance, it is either justified or not and the uniform isn’t the deciding factor.
Responsibility here would be being charged with murder and serving time
For defending yourself against someone who is physically breaking your door open at 2 in the morning?
What was the threat against his life?
Removed by mod
Except this person was not there to break in. And if the home owner took steps to meet the actual threat with a proportional response then he wouldn’t have killed the kid. Anything from shouting for the person to leave, to leaving the home and calling the police to also announcing he was armed and will shoot all could have prevented this. Which is why so many places have laws in place for this reason. This was a preventable death.
Except he DID do that! So nice try.
Would you make the same excuse when some drunk got behind the wheel and mowed down a bunch of kids? I mean, he wasn’t “there to do that” he was just trying to get home from the bar right? How about when one of those kids were yours? He had a good excuse, his INTENT was to just go home, so all is forgiven right?
I’m honestly jealous of the make believe world you people mentally live in.
His intention was not to break in to someone else’s home. He was at the wrong home. Your example involves people being hurt which makes the example bad for this context. You stretched it pretty far and then accused me of playing make believe. Impressive
Someone breaking into your house? You have no idea what kind of weapon (including a gun themselves) someone who is physically breaking into your house has.
Then why are you firing on them if you have a gun and you haven’t taken other steps to protect yourself. Blind firing is not self defense its irresponsible and caused the death of an innocent kid
No it wouldn’t, don’t be a retard. READ what he did the homeowner had EVERY reason to assume he was dealing with a home invasion.
You make a good example of how many stand your ground proponent’s don’t understand proportional response.
And you dont grasp laws written so morons dont stand their and wait to be murdered in their own home by somebody violently entering it. Dont try to equate an equal force argument with a home invasion in progress. The home invader has already shown intent. The kid died because of his own stupidity and irresponsibility.
Reality here shows you why you do use proportional
Again, the reality is there was no ill intent. I don’t need to force an equal force here because its clear had it been used the kid would be alive. That is the point of proportional response. Killing anyone should not be done without proper due diligence which here it is arguable it was not. The kid was murdered because he made an innocent mistake while drunk. A mistake that happens often
What is “proper due diligence” when someone has forced their way into your home?
Anything from shouting that you’re armed and will fire if they enter. Leaving the home if you’re able too. Warning shot. Visually confirming what you’re killing.
Home invasions are rare especially if you’re not connected to criminal life yourself.
And the kid fucked up. No doubt. Smashing a window, who wouldn’t think home invasion. But having a firearm to defend meant the home owner had time to take other actions and be safe. Actions weren’t taken. Actions that if taken would have prevented this death. Which is why many places don’t have these types of laws. Statistically you’re more likely to make a mistake than encounter a home invasion
There’s nothing in the article about if there were words exchanged or not. It does say that there was audio and video evidence that was reviewed during the investigation so it’s possible they did try yelling at him. I think that’s something most people would do in a situation like this.
No one should be expected to flee their own home.
Warning shots are inadvisable because you are responsible for where those shots land and it removes the “I feared for my life” justification in the eyes of the law. If you fired a warning shot and accidentally hit the intruder Or someone else you would be charged for that.
The intruder was shot in the chest through a window so we can assume he was visible.
So, give up your position and element of surprise letting them know where exactly you are.
Just give them the house, Morrowind rules.
A) Illegal and B) because it endangers bystanders and is reckless and irresponsible.
“Sorry I shot your grandma, I was trying to figure out if the dude making forcible entry to my home was an actual threat or was just out of Double Stuffed Oreos and the store was closed.”
No, if you shoot, you do so because you need to stop the threat, you want those bullets to hit the threat and preferably stay in him, not zip out and endanger bystanders, nor miss purposefully endangering them more. Your advice here is not only illegal but dangerous and irresponsible, and nobody should follow it.
You mean like seeing an arm break a window and reach for a doorknob?
At least charged with murder and let a jury hear the particulars.
I agree
Exactly-- no one wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore, and then has the nerve to complain when they are justifiably executed on the spot. Maybe you won’t have that last beer next time
“justifiably executed”. Jesus Christ man how psychotic are you?? Terrifying
You wanna know what’s REALLY justifiable, buddy? Not reading the obvious sarcasm in phrases like “executed on the spot” because the US gun culture is deranged
Every country other than the US has wild break-in issues with fatal robberies happening 24/7 because they don’t have guns.
Produce some data of shut the fuck up
It’s called what I hoped would be obvious sarcasm lol
Hmmmm
Removed by mod
Except that the burden on proof is on OP? Ne made an assumption without proof. To prove it is on him
lol