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.”

  • @Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    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.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
      link
      fedilink
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      By the way, there is no jury instruction on self-defense unless there’s an offer of proof that the homeowner knew of facts upon which a reasonable person could conclude that deadly force was authorized. Someone breaking your window, without more, is not a threat of deadly force against you, even if you are incredibly fragile and emotional.