Looks like the sophomore was likely intoxicated at 2am trying to enter the wrong house on the same street so the homeowner shot him dead on the porch to explain how his second amendment works. The sad stories just keep repeating themselves. POLICE PRESS RELEASE: Overnight Fatal Shooting on South Holly Street – City of Columbia Police Department Columbia Police Department (CPD) officers are investigating the overnight shooting of a 20-year-old male University of South Carolina student from Connecticut. Shortly before 2:00 a.m. today, officers were dispatched to the 500 block of South Holly Street for a reported home burglary. While en route, the emergency call for service was upgraded to a shots fired call. When officers arrived on the scene, they found a deceased male on the front porch with a gunshot wound to the upper body. Preliminary information indicates that Donofrio who resided on South Holly Street attempted to enter the wrong home when he was fatally shot.
The shooting of innocent people who may have made a mistake is a small price to pay for the nearly unlimited freedom to own firearms under the Second Amendment. Some more examples Ralph Yarl: Black teen shot at doorstep after ringing wrong doorbell Texas cheerleader shot 3 times after friend got into wrong car recalls harrowing attack and hurdles in recovery A 20-year-old woman was shot and killed after her friend turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York, officials say | CNN
I don't own a gun although if I did I wouldn't be so paranoid as shoot someone who knocked on my door by mistake or even tried to open my front door unless he was using a crowbar or similar device.
This is tragic. I’am waiting for the awesome news story of young person gets served breakfast at 2am and a night stay in a comfy bed after entering wrong address.
The Second Amendment is here to stay, and it's not the issue here. I look at this case from a strictly legal point of view. Florida law provides: "[A] person in his or her dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or prevent the commission of a forcible felony." Obviously, this is a factual determination, and where one resides plays a role in interpreting those facts. I am a homeowner and own a pistol I haven't shot in years. I cannot say with certainty what I would have done had I been awakened, undoubtedly groggy, at 2 in the morning with someone trying to break in my house. It would depend upon the circumstances. If my door was locked and he had not yet entered and didn't pose an immediate threat, I wouldn't have shot and asked questions later.
I own multiple guns. I would never shoot at someone in a circumstance like this. Unless there’s info we don’t know of, I just can’t see any justification for it. People have no value for human life?
I am also a gun owner. I was trained to never fire unless I could clearly see my target. However, someone entering my house at 2am, where my wife and kids are sleeping is not something I take lightly. The real Issue here is t the gun or the gun owner. It’s the drunken student at 2 am.
It's worth noting that the report says "attempted" to enter. If he was just jiggling a locked doorknob and wondering why his key was not working, then it seems like shooting was a bad call and maybe just telling him you've got a gun and he'd be wise to leave would have been the right thing. But if he actually entered, then I can't fault the owner.
It’s like that case with the racist Karen in (I think) South Carolina, shooting at a mother through a locked door. Shooting from behind a locked door should never be justified. It just isn’t credible or reasonable to claim one fears imminent bodily harm or death when the locked door stands in the way - and that imminent fear is required for that defense. Personally, I think we need to get back to affirmative use of that defense. Now if there were credible evidence of a real attempt to break and enter, or that it’s an armed robber, or they try to break in through an alternate access… such as a window (defacto breaking and entering) - then of course castle doctrine applies. Maybe the drunk was trying to smash the door or something? But he’d have to be real aggressive to come close to justifying lethal force. Just wiggling the door knob or banging on the door (even at 2am) isn’t enough. To just shoot through a door is cowardly.
The great majority of gun owners wouldn’t shoot someone in that situation. All it takes is one scared, trigger happy person …
