Fatal shooting of University of South Carolina student who tried to enter wrong home 'justifiable,' police say - eviltoast

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
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
        9
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        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?

        • 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
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            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

            • FlowVoid@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • 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.

        • Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          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.

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            He did more than make noise:

            While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door "and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob," at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window

            Regardless of what you think about gun laws, I think the resident had good reason to be concerned for his safety.

          • 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.

        • tchotchony@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

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

            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.

            • tchotchony@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

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

                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”

        • PowerGloveSoBad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          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
              4
              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

        • kattenluik@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every country other than the US has wild break-in issues with fatal robberies happening 24/7 because they don’t have guns.