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.”

      • Leo_agiad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The U.S. spends a tremendous amount of its energy on paranoia, checks and balances, and being remarkably resistant to large-scale changes of the status quo, particularly with respect to rights attendant to private property.

        In the current period of bullet trains, wind farms, and unisex bathrooms, it is incredibly inconvenient, even dangerous in its own right. It looks like an operating system bug, but only because it is holding up a feature that the real owners of America don’t like advertised.

        There is a reason the dollar is still the global reserve currency- because the entire system was set up to make private property despot-and-revolution-resistant, and the smart money knows it.

        The world is heading into a major demographic shift that is going to hit everybody’s social model like a brick through a plate glass window- too many pensioners and not enough taxpayers, and no one has built the roomba that cooks and cleans for grandma yet. We will get to watch a preview in China and Russia quite soon. The pitchforks are going to come out again, and politicians will blow with the wind.

        But if you own land/stuff in America, you will still own land/stuff in America.

        I’m not saying it is right, or just. It is simply some useful perspective on what such an awkward, irritating, distributed, recursive system might have been designed for, because it certainly wasn’t designed for speed.

        The term “storm canvas” comes to mind, and with it a reminder to keep an eye to windward.

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

          This is such a non sequitur argument lol

          The U.S. spends a tremendous amount of its energy on paranoia, checks and balances, and being remarkably resistant to large-scale changes of the status quo, particularly with respect to rights attendant to private property.

          I don’t know one single government that is in favor of upending property rights, the exception being newborn Communist nations. Those same communist nations, after the Vanguard die out, stop changes to property rights. The US isn’t different from other nations. Even China (today) is resistant to changes to the property rights structure.

          In the current period of bullet trains, wind farms, and unisex bathrooms, it is incredibly inconvenient, even dangerous in its own right. It looks like an operating system bug, but only because it is holding up a feature that the real owners of America don’t like advertised.

          What does this mean? Like, what is the point here? The US is currently reinventing their electrical grid, reshoring manufacturing, and is investing record amounts of money in itself to do so. The US carbon emissions have already peaked and they are slowly declining every year.

          There is a reason the dollar is still the global reserve currency- because the entire system was set up to make private property despot-and-revolution-resistant, and the smart money knows it.

          Again, totally random argument you just tossed in here. The US dollar is the reserve currency because every other currency is not as appealing. Case in point: we increase the interest rate as global inflation sets in and all other nations’ currencies immediately depreciate against the dollar. China has to have currency exchange controls because people would so prefer to hold USD.

          The world is heading into a major demographic shift that is going to hit everybody’s social model like a brick through a plate glass window- too many pensioners and not enough taxpayers, and no one has built the roomba that cooks and cleans for grandma yet. We will get to watch a preview in China and Russia quite soon. The pitchforks are going to come out again, and politicians will blow with the wind.

          Where do you come up with this stuff? This is some straight up fox news replacement BS. The US is 15% immigrants and is one of the only developed nations to have a relatively healthy population pyramid. If anything, this argument you’ve made is actually PRO America, ANTI rest of the world.

          But if you own land/stuff in America, you will still own land/stuff in America. I’m not saying it is right, or just.   It is simply some useful perspective on what such an awkward, irritating, distributed, recursive system might have been designed for, because it certainly wasn’t designed for speed.

          The CCP owns all Chinese property and no one can take it from them. The German government cannot expropriate property. Filipinos, Malaysians, Columbians, Egyptians, Norwegians, South Koreans… they are entitled to property rights.

          Property rights are not uniquely American and it’s weird you think property rights are what makes America uniquely bad.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just for curiosity’s sake, if it was the middle of the night and someone started pounding on your front door and yelling, then tried to kick your door in, then broke your window, reached in and started trying to unlock your door from the inside, what’s the civilized non-American response to that?

      • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You engage them in conversion, explain to them simply they are at the wrong house, and keep pushing that point

        Source: I had this situation happen to me at uni, explained to the side he had the wrong house, showed him the house number, and he calmly left.

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

          Cool, cool. Now, what if the intruder isn’t a drunk college kid but someone looking to do you harm? You open the door, he pushes inside because he already knew that he wanted to do harm to the people inaide this house number, and then what?

          Not everyone is a drunk kid.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s the average police response time in your area? Is it less than 30 seconds? Because that’s how long it would be until dude is physically in your home.

            • 𝙣𝙪𝙠𝙚@yah.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Literally from the article:

              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”

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

              Well, maybe they handle mental illness better where you are (seriously, I bet they do). But here, we let them walk around untill they kill someone. So that is who you are protecting yourself from. And there are a lot of them just waiting to snap.

      • kicksystem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. Talk to the person
        2. Call the police and tell the person the police is coming
        3. Block the person from coming in
        4. If he comes in anyway use tools like baseball bat, hammer or kitchen knife to defend yourself
      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can bang on a reinforced steel door all you want until the police comes.

        • 𝙣𝙪𝙠𝙚@yah.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did no one read the article?

          He smashed the window and began undoing the lock from the inside

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            No one ever reads the article. What do we want, context?

            I’m not gonna call it the world’s best home defense shooting, but I’m not gonna call it some kind of injustice.

    • Compactor9679@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Amd we love not having you, too many imigrants already. If its so bad, why people keep trying to get in?

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But there’s one thing in which America is homogenous - school and mass shootings.

      • Soulg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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
          43
          ·
          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
            11
            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
              14
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              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.

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

                Yes, my only issue is what lead up to this point. Once he broke the glass, maybe I can see it being justified. But did he call the police? Did he actually talk to the guy or stand inside and ready himself to shoot him? Was there a non-lethal option? Could he have broken his wrist by pistol-whipping?

                Regardless of your stance on fun laws, I am sure we can agree that there have been far too many people shot through a front door this year to be comfortable. There was the girl who was selling Girl Scout cookies, the woman who was trying to deal with a neighbor who had violently assaulted her children with malice and a weapon, the guy who was lost and stopped to ask for directions. The list goes on. This country is founded on the idea that you can walk up to someone’s front door and knock on it. Barring posted signage to the contrary, it is a universal right of anyone to be able to walk up a driveway and knock on the door without fear of reprisal. Castle doctrine has been getting applied too broadly in recent years and needs to be reigned in. It needs to have reasonableness applied as to it being a last resort. It should also not extend beyond the castle walls. There were many reasonable actions that could have been taken in this case that obviously were not. A non-lethal shot? Hell, even a warning shot would have likely been enough to warn a drunk off. I am not saying that this is murder, or even manslaughter, but a life was unnecessarily snuffed out. This needs to be something. This idea that you can shoot someone on your front porch is reprehensible.

            • 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”

          • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            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
              7
              ·
              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
                9
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                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.

              • random65837@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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.

                • 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.

                  • random65837@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Exactly! All the gun haters, which are usually also Police haters are real quick to judge gun owners, until something terrible happens, then their excuse for everything is call the guys with guns. Which of course ends with them crying when it comes to using them. Like any cop WANTS to shoot and kill a person.

            • Silverseren@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

                • Silverseren@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year 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
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year 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
                5
                ·
                1 year 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
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year 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
                    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
            8
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            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
                5
                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
            12
            ·
            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.