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

https://lemmy.world/post/4207159

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

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.”

Donofrio repeatedly knocked, banged and kicked on the front door “while manipulating the door handle” while trying to enter the home.

Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door “and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob”

Yeah, that’s more than just trying to walk into the wrong house when you’re blackout drunk, so I can see why they would consider it justified. But that’s the word of the police, so we’ll see if a different story comes out later.

Ouch. Yep, that’s justifiable homicide
Not in my state. No deadly threat, no clear intent to commit a felony. Breaking in is not enough for precisely this reason: the person may have a mistaken claim of right.
Breaking and entering isn’t a felony in your state???, huh…

Only if done with criminal intent. You know, you’re allowed to break into your own house.

If you think it’s your house and it’s not, your mistaken claim of right negates the intent. You might assume your lock broke or something and your only intent is to get inside and take your drunk ass to sleep.

This is scenario where you wake up and find a trespasser asleep on your couch, you can’t just murder them, even if you can see evidence that they broke the window to get in.

There is no duty to retreat in the home, but deadly force is still only authorized to counter deadly force.

In places authorizing deadly force to repel a felonious entry, the intent to commit crimes once inside supplies the justification for force. You cannot know the intention from the mere fact that they are breaking in. That’s why you can’t blindly fire through the door at someone trying to break your door in.

If the person ignores commands to stop, ignores warnings, threatens you, says something like “this is a robbery,” or has a weapon, that’s a different story; there, it’s reasonable to infer their criminal intent.

What you’re saying flies in the face of mens rea. The person who’s state of mind is examined here is the homeowner. If they perceive their life is in danger they’re allowed to use force. In your state there may be a duty to retreat but even there there are exigent circumstances.

Good luck convincing a jury this guy knew the person who had just smashed his window and was trying to unlock the door from the outside wasn’t quite literally breaking and entering.

Nope. I’ve stated the rule correctly. Again, breaking and entering without more is insufficient justification for deadly force. Castle doctrine is inapplicable to mere breaking and entering. There has be something else, warnings or commands to stop that get ignored, something.

In my examples the homeowner has no basis to conclude that there is any threat.

The test is both subjective and objective. Otherwise, insane people could murder anyone that knocked on their door and claim they were in fear for their life.

Obviously you’re wrong about castle doctrine because this guy isn’t being charged.
Yeah some backwards country sheriff, ignoring law, bastardizing castle doctrine.