Fatal shooting of University of South Carolina student who tried to enter wrong home 'justifiable,' police say - eviltoast
The homeowner who fatally shot 20-year-old Nicholas Donofrio will not face charges due to the state's "castle doctrine" law, Columbia Police announced Wednesday.

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.”

    • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
      101·
      1 year ago

      The guy was trying to break in, having smashed a window and was working and lock from the inside. He wasn’t just drunkenly banging on the door.

      According to previously unreported details that police released about the incident Wednesday, Donofrio repeatedly knocked, banged and kicked on the front door “while manipulating the door handle” in trying to enter the home.

      A female resident called 911 as Donofrio kicked the door, while a male resident went to retrieve a firearm elsewhere in the home, the news release says. The homeowner owned the gun legally, “for the purpose of personal and home protection,” police said.

      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, striking Donofrio in his upper body, police said.

        • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
          11·
          1 year ago

          Two things. Site your ‘facts’. I’m willing to bet your sources are highly biased.

          Also here’s the definition for propaganda.

          ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.

          You weren’t aware of that little fact?

          • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Sorry, I was wrong. It’s a bit under 2 mass shootings a day.

            List of all mass shootings: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

            They define a mass shooting as a shooting incident where 4 or more people, excluding the shooter, are shot. They have 498 mass shootings recorded so far this year.

            We are currently on day 255 of the year.

            498/255 = 1.95

            Or are those facts too biased for you?

            • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              When you use a website that has a purpose of further a narrative, yes that’s absolutely biased. That’s like people using NRA stats to argue in favor of guns. So until you can use actual data without spin, your arguments are irrelevant. Your website gets its data from somewhere, what’s the source and do the numbers still line up to your claim?