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.”
Relevant:
Under those circumstances, I don’t blame the homeowner for using a gun to defend himself and the other female resident. This guy was literally breaking into their home. If it had been me, I would have been terrified and very thankful to have a gun on hand for defense. I’m sure a lot of people here will protest to the shooting, but I would urge them to really think about what they would have done in such a situation. I don’t know what Donofrio’s reasons were for trying to break into the home, but they hardly matter; the fact is, he did try, and the residents of the home had every reason to think they were in danger. If we had multi-shot stun guns that could reliably incapacitate an intruder, I’d say he should have used that rather than a lethal weapon, but current stun guns aren’t that reliable and only fire once before needing to be reloaded. That a life was lost is sad, but I agree that no criminal charges should be filed in this instance. However, I’m not saying that I entirely agree with the Castle doctrine on which this is based, as I’m not intimately familiar with it, but the general notion of being able to use lethal force to defend oneself against a home intruder I do agree with on principle.
I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It’s too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that’s completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).
I actually don’t hate castle doctrine tbh, which is commonly confused with the more controversial “stand your ground.” I frankly do not see “a duty to retreat” from one’s own occupied dwelling in the event of an intruder, in my opinion that duty dissipates the second forcible entry has been made to my home.
The common thing I hear is “they usually just want your TV,” but A) The best way to steal a TV is to push a cart, trust me, especially if you still have a 24hr walmart, and B) if you have to rob people of their TV who are also probably living paycheck to paycheck, at least have the common decency to not do so while they’re home and scare the shit out of them. For all they know you could be a rapist or a murderer even if just out of opportunity or “no witnesses,” even by accident with poor gun safety from robbers. Tbh it’s hard for me to agree that some poor family should have to flee their own home or hide in a closet if someone else decides to enter it unlawfully.
I said “option” to retreat not “duty” which is an important distinction I think. And there’s also the option of other reasonable force. I don’t think killing to protect my TV is reasonable, but fighting back possibly even causing injury might be. If I lived in a place where the intruder wasn’t likely to be armed, I’d probably whack his hand with broom handle, and I wouldn’t even feel bad if I broke his wrist because some use of force to keep a stranger from entering my house is warranted. When it comes to lethal force though the standard should be higher, which is why I prefer the self-defense/defense of others test. Did the guy have good reason to think the person breaking in was an imminent danger, that he might be armed and therefore escalation to firing a gun was reasonable? I don’t pretend to know, but I think that’s the test that should be used. That test should take into account that it was his house being broken in to, and that there was another person present he might have wanted to protect, because that definitely affects your perception of danger. We don’t need a set of principles that say you automatically get a pass when it’s your house, I think it’s better to look at each case individually.
Right, but the castle doctrine specifically is a set of principles which when incorporated into the laws lessens the “duty” to retreat inside one’s own home, which is why I said “duty.” Castle doctrine then actually gives one the “option” because while you’d have no “duty to retreat,” you still “could if you wanted,” while with the inverse the “option” to “not retreat” is taken from you.
I think it’s a reasonable assumption that if they break into my house while I’m in it, they’re at least willing to harm me to accomplish whatever goal they had and the goal becomes inconsequential, and therefore it is reasonable to defend myself to the fullest extent necessary. In the time it takes to play the “Hello sir yes it’s dark and 3am and you just woke me up but do you have a weapon of any kind or are we about to engage in a bout of fisticuffs” game I could be stabbed, I’m not taking that chance frankly.
And you’re welcome to so, but I personally would rather not incur undue risk, I’d rather have the option to defend the safest-for-me way I can, which happens to be a firearm. With castle doctrine we’re both happy, you can broom-whack and I can stay safe, options.
That’s what I mean, imo if you’ve entered my occupied dwelling “for the TV bro I promise,” me responding with deadly force is self defense. It isn’t about the tv, contrary to what he or detractors of castle doctrine will tell you, it’s about the fact that if he couldn’t wait until I get to work or just steal one from walmart he’s clearly willing to do me harm, he could very well be armed, and we’re in a private secluded location where nobody could hear me scream, yeah “so anyway I started blasting.”
I think that set of principles is right, someone breaking into your house while you’re inside it is a bigger threat than it’s naysayers would have you believe.
That’s a valid statement.
It also demonstrates a wider problem: gun proliferation is so incredibly high that the default assumption is always going to be “that person might have a gun,” and this will always prompt a much lowered threshold to use one’s own gun in return.
Exactly this. I am from Central Europe and if someone tried to break into my home, I wouldnt assume by
Renaultdefault that they have a weapon. Because burglars here aren’t armed.Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)
Oh shit
And are your rapists armed?
According to most stories in the newspapers, no.
Then an unarmed intruder can still be a serious threat.
It doesn’t really matter if they have a gun or not from the perspective of someone who’s home is being broken into. Any physical violence is dangerous and can result in death. People breaking into homes aren’t getting shot because they “might have a gun”. They’re getting shot because it’s unreasonable to expect a victim to accept any further risk by trying to talk the aggressor down or subdue them some other way once they’ve broken in.
No disagreement. I’m a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won’t solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.
You know that guns aren’t the only way to hurt people, right? People can be killed quite easily
No, I did not know that.
That’s amazing.
Wow you’re telling me the tidal wave of liberal shitposting on Reddit was wrong about this and they should have waited for the actual facts? I don’t believe it!!
I agree with you, I do. It should be legal to protect your property. The problem is when you have a gun, everything looks like a shooting. If you didn’t have a gun, how would you handle the situation? You could leave. You could lock yourself in an interior room and wait for the cops. You could fight them Kevin style. All of those options, at the end of the day, would give you a better chance of not killing somebody.
It’s not about protection of property to me. I don’t care about that. I care about people having the right to use all reasonable options for defending themselves against violent attackers. And to your point, might this person’s death have been avoided if the occupants of the home had fled or hid somewhere? Certainly. But should they be legally required to do so? No, not in my opinion. Reason being, I don’t think the impetus should be on victims to take their attackers’ well-being into account when it’s the attackers that are creating the problem in the first place. Telling a person who is scared for their life that they need to fight the impulse coming from their amygdala to fight back against a violent attacker is totally unreasonable. If a person is coming at me with their fists and I have a gun, I don’t think I should have to refrain from firing my weapon and take the hits my attacker is throwing, just to make sure he doesn’t die. What if I die? What if I lose an eye or get my face scarred up? What if he takes my gun and shoots me? No. No, fuck that, if someone is attacking me, they’ve given me permission to defend myself in whatever way seems reasonable to me, and I’m not risking my own life or even just serious injury because someone else has anger management problems. They’re the problem; they’re the threat to society; if they die, yeah that sucks, but it’s their fucking fault, not mine for defending myself against their violent behavior.
I’m so sick of people having all this empathy for violent criminals, and way too little for their victims. You want to tell other people to react in a calm, collected, pacifist manner when they’re being attacked, to risk their own lives and wellbeing for the sake of their attacker’s? Tell you what, you get yourself attacked somehow when you’re not expecting it and demonstrate how cool, calm, and pacifist you are under fire; you show the rest of us how easy that is. You do that, and maybe I’ll consider what you have to say, but until then, you’re just a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching bystander who has their priorities messed up and doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
That’s fine but where’s the line. If someone pulls up in your driveway, is it OK to shoot them? If they knock on your door? What if you have an argument and they throw popcorn at you? The last one was deemed reasonable in Florida. If you have a legitimate conflict with someone, is it just a matter of who kills who first? If someone breaks into your home, this case, he broke the glass and was trying to open the door. Can you shoot them? Do you need to warn them first? What if they were just outside walking around creepily. Is it OK to kill them? Can i provoke someone then when thry come at me, can i kill them? Where’s the line? This is a real question because right now the rules don’t make sense.
Violence is the line.
Does that include popcorn?
Of course not.
That’s good to hear. Unfortunately, the courts make the issue confusing.
Those other options also put you at a greater potential for being harmed yourself. Your goal should always be to not get harmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm53BnikXTI
The guy at the door was not an immediate threat to life or limb, save his own. Firing a gun was not justified without threat, IMO. But I guess in the USA you can murder people to save your property (not your life).
How much more “immediate” do you need? A complete stranger is trying to break into your home to do god knows what is the epitome of a clear and immediate danger to me.
What would you have done? Opened the door and welcomed them in?
Opening the door may have saved everyone in this case.
Did they try to communicate with the person? Look through the widow to see whether the person is armed? Flee? Get a non lethal weapon like a bat, knife, pepper spray? Hide? There was time for the home owner to go get a gun before the window broke. I assume, since this is USA, that it was already loaded (😂) so I’m sure it didn’t take too long, but did they try ANY of those things? Unlikely, and that’s unfortunate.
You ever use a bat or knife to kill a person? Way harder than squeezing a trigger, friend.
Which is why if you attack someone with those (and don’t kill them, if you do it’s just murder) you get charged with assault with a deadly weapon, friend? See how that plays out for you in court.
Though you are right even if you were far off base from my point, it is easier to defend yourself with a gun than a bat or a knife.
Again, you’re wrong. It’s easier to kill people with a gun than a bat or a knife. My point is that this case shouldn’t be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text) because other avenues for dealing with the situation existed and were possible. In that case, I’d rather be charged with assault than murder.
No, read it again, I believe you’ll find I did acknowledge that you were right, a gun is more effective than melee weapons if you have to defend yourself.
Strange interpretation of castle doctrine, mind sharing the relevant portion that would preclude this man from self defense? The whole thing about castle doctrine is exactly to shut people who say “you should have waited until he put the knife in your throat, then shoot him,” like yourself, up. When someone breaks in, breaking a window, to gain unauthorized entry to your house, their reason for doing so is frankly irrelelvant, it is reasonable to defend yourself to your fullest ability and not put yourself in further danger to protect the invader. If you want to take the chance that it’s a drunk kid not looking for violence, take it, but don’t force others to incur undue risk, teach drunk college kids not to break and enter. He shouldn’t be charged with either for defending his home.
And in my example of attacking people with them being still murder if you kill them and assault with a deadly weapon if you don’t applies to all three weapons, gun, knife, and bat. That’s what I’m saying, the law does not differentiate based on weapon used, they differentiate based on reasonable standards of force, and you can only use all three of those if the standard for deadly force has been reached. If not, you will be in trouble for escalating it using any one of those three weapons. Fortunately for you however, if someone did break in, you’d meet that standard, so you can kill them with any of the three.