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.”
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.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
You make a good example of how many stand your ground proponent’s don’t understand proportional response.
deleted by creator
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
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?
Yes, it isn’t Fallujah. Your position is in the house. Either they know your there or they don’t. If they don’t and you yell your armed the odds are they leave. Or in this case it would have opened a dialogue that would prevent the murder.
You aren’t giving them this deed to your house.
No
No it doesn’t. But I agree its a shame when innocent people die due to irresponsible gun owners
Unarmed hand but go back to first point about warning intruder you are armed and will fire.
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.
Its the safest and quickest way to deescalate. If your house is on fire you don’t try to stay and fight it yourself. You get to safety. Same goes for home invasion. I’m not dying to save $500 TV. Standing ground only makes sense as last resort.
No. Warning shots are warranted in some situations which this is. It sounds like you’re expecting more self control for warning shot and not for a kill shot
At least charged with murder and let a jury hear the particulars.
I agree