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.”

  • Soulg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    We hate having these garbage laws to protect rooty tooty point and shooty more than our actual citizens

    • Rusty3427@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      2 years 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
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years 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.

      • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years 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
          3
          ·
          2 years 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

          • random65837@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

        • Silverseren@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          For defending yourself against someone who is physically breaking your door open at 2 in the morning?

            • Silverseren@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                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

            • random65837@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Having your home burglarized is reason to fear grave injury or death under law, wake up. Breaking into the house IS the aggression.

              • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                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.

                • random65837@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  Except this person was not there to break in

                  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.

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

                    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

        • random65837@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

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

            • random65837@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years 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
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 years 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