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.”

  • Rusty3427@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        heaven forbid, actually opened the door and talked with him to figure out what was going on

        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.

    • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You make a good example of how many stand your ground proponent’s don’t understand proportional response.

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              so morons dont stand their and wait to be murdered in their own home by somebody violently entering it.

              Reality here shows you why you do use proportional

              Dont try to equate an equal force argument with a home invasion in progress. The home invader has already shown intent.

              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

    • PowerGloveSoBad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

        • PowerGloveSoBad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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