A terrible tragedy has befallen the University of South Carolina after sophomore Nicholas Anthony Donofrio, 20, was shot and killed on the front porch of a house in Columbia. He was reportedly trying to enter the wrong home near the campus around 2 am. Donofrio lived at a house on the same street. It is an all-too-familiar pattern that we often discuss in my torts class where people are confused and try to enter the wrong home.
This is an unimaginable tragedy for the Donofrio family as well as the USC community. Donofrio had just transferred to the school and was a popular student who played on the basketball team. It is also a loss for friends and faculty at the University of New England where he spent his freshman year. His parents had just helped him move into the Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity house one week earlier. He was studying kinesiology and exercise science.
The original “academy” created in Athens involved students and faculty meeting in a grove. They would form a circle, a safe space for the exchange of ideas and viewpoints. That special sense of protection is shattered in these tragic moments.
Legally, the family may be faced with few options. South Carolina is a Castle Doctrine state as well as a Stand Your Ground state. That can factor heavily into the criminal investigation.
The common law has long offered protections even for reasonable mistakes. Castle doctrine states codified and, in some states, expanded on those common law protections. They have resulted in some highly controversial cases like that of Tom Horn in Texas.
I have included the South Carolina Castle Doctrine provision. Note that the law allows the use of deadly force against anyone who “is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence.” It does not limit the use of lethal force only for intentionally unlawful entries.
Moreover, the required showing is not a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, but a showing that the home owner “knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.”
Critics of these laws have long maintained that they encourage the use of deadly force when the common law offers ample protections.
The case is reminiscent of the shooting of a Japanese student in Baton Rouge. The 16-year-old Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was looking for a Halloween party and scared the wife of Rodney Peairs when he spoke a strange language and approached the house. Peairs shot him in the chest with a .44 Magnum handgun and was later cleared under a Make My Day law as mistaken defense of his home and self. We also discussed a tragic case involving the killing of a law student.
While the investigation is ongoing, criminal and civil liability could prove challenging in light of these laws.
Here is the statutory provision:
(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or
(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or
(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.
(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.
It sounds like the student was drunk out of his mind. There’s no telling what he was yelling. Alcohol not only distorts the mind, it kills (my ex-wife drank herself to death,) This case is cut in stone. The homeowner was defending his home and family against an unknown intruder. The real moral to this story is – DON’T DRINK!!
Sounds like the Hatari case in Louisiana. Louisiana is also Castle Doctrine, but the shooting was not in the house, but in the carport. Homeowner lost on that one. I don’t know if SC works the same way, but I am thinking the homeowner may have a problem (the post says it was on the front porch).
Who he was, and his back story are categorically irrelevant. The incident is tragic, of course, as tragic as it would have been had he instead got behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, lost control and died in a crash. But of course that would not have provided the Left with yet another opportunity to attempt to disarm the populace.
It should not be a burden put on the homeowner to decipher if it’s friend or foe. Perhaps you shouldn’t get wasted the moment you move to a new place? Get familiar with the neighborhood. It’s 100% responsibility of the idiot kid no matter how sad the outcome.
Depends on what they’re up to. Antifa rioters and home invaders, AOK, concert goers or your typical democrat, not really.
“So wasted young people are justified targets?”
Nice obfuscation there bug boy. So now the kid was a target?? A stranger entering your home is a target???
You don’t have reasonable argument so you try to make the argument unreasonable.
But yea, come in my house at 2AM, and I don’t know you, there will be a green dot on your chest before a cat can lick it’s a$$. Followed quickly by a frangible.
At the very least, whatever burden they have should not be greater than the burden on the White House security detail.
You are one of these trolls that we must ignore. Be gone, troll!
I also read your post(s). I don’t think you’re completely stupid.
You at least know enough not to use your real name.
Very optimistic. Most of us see him as half-crazy. You see him as half-sane.
With your comment about ARs and ammo at the range, you just proved how stupid you are.
I suspect there is a strong correlation between the ‘age of rage’ and ‘trigger happy’ people.
Agreed! In the 1960’s I was an army brat living at Ft. Leavenworth in my parent’s officers quarters. My mother came into the kitchen one morning to find Gen. Colladay sitting at our table, he was an old man then and was visiting his family who lived in the adjacent quarters. No guns were drawn, no heart rates climbed. The misunderstanding was resolved with much hilarity. But – in those days – people had a sense of personal responsibility and a sense of humor. Now, we are slaves to our hyper-tragic media and some of us have become frightened rabbits (cowards).
What a dumb comment.
I can speak of experience being awaken at 3:00 am by an young man being very intoxicated trying to come into my house. I live alone and fell asleep on the couch in my den with the TV on like I usually do. A young man came through the backyard and into the enclosed sun room via an unlocked door and was trying to come through a glass door that leads into the den. It was locked. He was raddling the door when I woke up and saw him through the glass door. I yelled at him and then when down the hallway to get my shotgun which I keep loaded with the first shot being bird shot and the second round being double buckshot. My adrenaline was running so high that I pick up and old pellet gun thinking I had the shotgun. At the same time I called 911. I scared off the young man and the sheriffs came. The deputy sheriff looking at the situation said I would have been justified to shoot the intruder. That would have been a life changing event even though I am a Veteran. An hour later the sheriff found the intoxicated man coming back with a friend to get his car that he abandoned down the road. It turned out that he worked for a old friend of mine’s landscaping business. I am glad I did not grab the shotgun. I now live in fear that one night I will wake up with someone standing over me. You never know what you will do if you are awaked from a dead sleep and in a stupor.
I wonder what Prof Turley’s take on this is? The primary antagonists lately have been Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan.
I would like to see/read more information before making an assessment.
It is tragic.
A ‘Reasonable Person’ and proficiently trained and disciplined Gun Owner knows not to shoot at shadows, that is to say You Identify Your Target before discharging the Weapon.
It just common sense. [Example] A husband wakes up in the in the wee hours of the morning 3:00am because he suddenly remembered that the Lawn Sprinkler was left on. So he goes down the stairs and out the front door to the hose bib and turns off the Water. He comes back up the stoop and through the front door and “BANG!”. He’s shoot with his own .40 Caliber S&W straight through the Heart. In the last 30 seconds of his life, lying there in the foyer, the lights come on, and there he sees just before his passing, His Wife. He’s gone and She’s is weeping & wailing like Baptist at a Funeral. She won ‘The Last Argument’.
The moral of the story, clearly Identify Your Target before you Pull the Trigger. Also examine what is beyond the Target area, Calculate what You may hit if you miss your target. (also keeping your gun away from your Wife is a good idea)
Not all States have ‘Stand Your Ground Laws”, 11 have “Duty to Retreat” Laws.
Stand Your Ground vs. Castle Doctrine
The castle doctrine is similar to stand your ground but is typically limited to real property, including one’s home or business. The idea is that people have a right to be safe and secure within their own homes (or “castles”) and thus should not have to retreat from their homes to be safe. This means homeowners in states that recognize the castle doctrine can use lethal force against trespassers to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm.
There are to many Knee Jerk and Stupidity Shootings going on.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/stand-your-ground-laws.html
They should have gun classes in every school, I agree. However, having a registry of citizens that opt to take the classes or are required to as part of a gun buy is an infringement, imo. ‘Member how NY used its registry?
There are all kinds of laws people must follow, doesn’t mean they need to have a course on each one or to be a registered ‘law-knowing’ person.
However, if there were courses required to participate in Constitutional rights, voting should be the first one.
Tell us about the efficacy of the Illinois registry, FOID and compare that to say, Idaho’s (lack of) requirement.
“A registry is not an infringement.”
A government-mandated registry certainly is.
A free person exists by right. A slave exists by permission.
Neil,
Biden just took away funding for youth hunter safety courses and archery programs in schools.
Well, I suppose it was that or tranny dildo ring toss class, tough choice but biden’s gotta pay the piper.
That does sound like common sense, like literacy tests for voting.
Now here is a related Quora question.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-so-much-resistance-against-the-proposal-that-people-be-required-to-pass-an-annual-civics-exam-before-being-allowed-to-vote-in-elections
– Ed Spire
I agree that owning a firearm is quite simple and that making an informed choice as a voter is much more complicated.
You have no evidence that required education, registries, or tests make any difference in gun safety – in fact in the areas most restrictive for gun owners, we see the highest gun violence rates. But, because your aim is a political one (scare normies from having/enjoying guns and keep moron inner city dwellers voting who are illiterate after democrat public school districts fail to even basically educating their citizens) and not a safety issue (blue cities are way more violent) you will stick your head in the sand and toe the party line.
Neil,
Well said.
My wife was taught firearm safety and how to shoot as soon as she was as tall as the rifle was long.
Thx. I was also as were my kids.
IMO, handling a firearm is as fundamental as swimming or driving. If you are ever in the position where you need to do any of those things, you’d better be educated. Plus, they are good confidence builders.
In boot camp, I noticed you could tell who was brought up and around firearms to those who did not.
When we were first issued our M16s, those who were not brought up around firearms thought they were so cool . . . until later the drill instructors made us hold them out by the barrel till our arms and shoulders were on fire.
Good times!
Why do you blame the home owner? The student was irresponsible in this case. All emotions aside the homeowner may have been trigger happy but he had a right to pull the trigger.
We also don’t know the behavior of the student. They all are the most outstanding citizens in eulogies but reality is often different.
Imagine if this student had done the exact same thing at the White House…
LOL. You live in a fantasy world. The police have training and they obviously have real problems controlling their trigger fingers.
Our activist government has gone so far as to suspend children in school for drawing the picture of a gun.
No more playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians on the playground.
So dumb down everyone into a compliance of stupidity and fear, then demand even more government intervention with training.
We get that even in the light of the endlessly obvious shootings in the minority and criminally enhanced democrat run low end wage no wage living areas. Instead of pointing out the obvious, it is covered up, then “gun stats” ragers use the lies to go after responsible people.
Then we get to the lack of information in the “tragedy” above. I seriously doubt we will ever get the real story, though that should be simple in a society that claims to be democratic and wants to use it to make judgements on law and right and wrong. Do we even know what really happened with Pelosi’s husband and the hammer incident at the Pelosi home ? Who was the second occupant of the vehicle when he was caught drunk driving – we still don’t know.
The captain of the basketball team. That’s why this is news.
“Who was the second occupant of the vehicle when he was caught drunk driving – we still don’t know.”
It was the guy with the hammer. Pelosi’s gigolo. Thats why he was there at the house that night, because Pelosi never paid him for the blow job he was giving him when Pelosi hit the other car. This has already been hashed out.
Besides having training for gun ownership, a regulation you state as being Constitutional, maybe we can have mandatory education prior to a woman getting an abortion. Both acts may cause life long anguish and questions and therefore should not be rushed. Deal?
Or how about passing an annual civics exam to vote, and failing the exam disqualifies the voter for two years. n
I hate to be trite, but “nothing good ever happens after midnight” is a saying because it is true. Sad for all involved.
The homeowner called 911 (or the cops direct) and then called again later after the shots were fired. There are plenty of unanswered questions.
There is a common belief that gun ownership makes you safer. At least that is the argument by many of the 2nd amendment advocates in sate legislatures. But is that true?
This article is a bit dated but I believe the general shape of the curve remains true today.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/chart-of-day-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-gun-deaths/
Using firearm stats that include suicide when referencing public safety is disingenuous, at best.
Look at Idaho on that graph – looks like a terrifyingly unsafe place to go – you’re 50% more likely to be gunned down there than in MD, DC, IL – lolol.
Using anything from the WEF is outright laughable, of course they are for anything that furthers the domestication of humans across the planet to benefit a very small group of people – that is solely why the organization exists.
I believe the basic fact of more guns equals more gun deaths is true. Yes this includes suicide. But think for a second. We live in a society where most people live in close proximity to thousands if not millions of other people. How many people do you know? I mean really know? So one day, the person around the block from you receives one of your items from the mail. Being the good citizen this person is they take this piece of mail to your house. This person also being conscience of crime in the neighborhood straps on his gun to his hip to keep him and the neighborhood safe. Your doorbell rings, you peak out your window and only catch a glimpse of a person standing on your doorstep with a gun strapped to their waist. You are scared, You grab your gun, open the door, the person raises their hand with an envelope in it. Knowing this person has a gun you raise your gun and shoot them before they can do or say anything. Justified? According to the law (in some states) you are justified because it is your doorstep and you are scared.
Open carry is the popular thing among many 2nd amendment advocates where they say guns for all makes us safe. But how do you tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun? All the law requires (in many states) is that you are afraid. So by this standard you can walk around and shoot anyone you want (within reason) if you say you were scared.
Is this really the type of society you want to have?
Idaho has a gun ownership rate of 57% (1,026,000) and MD (1,020,000 guns) has 17%, according to internet (2019).
In 2019 there were 255 gun deaths in ID, 233 suicides, 14 accidents, 18 homicides (0.001% gun homicide rate).
In 2019 there were 757 gun deaths in MD, 268 suicides, 21 accidents, 468 homicides (0.008% gun homicide rate).
Effectively the same number of guns and gun suicides/accident, but vastly different homicide rate. Guns aren’t the common denominator in gun homicides.
I want to live in a society where I don’t have to deal with violent criminals, which is why I don’t live in blue city.
“All the law requires (in many states) is that you are afraid. So by this standard you can walk around and shoot anyone you want (within reason) if you say you were scared.”
And to prove your point, you meant to post the study showing that this happens all the time, didn’t you????
did I say all the time? I don’t think so. I am merely pointing out the defense that has been used successfully. If you are scared for your life, you get to kill the person scaring you.
you are not familiar with the many cases of people being killed for this very reason? That is what this article is about. Did you not read it?
“did I say all the time?”
No, you said “walk around and shoot anyone you want”, then you added (within reason), as if that ever was reasonable. Say it out loud “shoot anyone you want within reason”. You’re kidding me right? No, I’m not familiar with many people walking around killing anyone they want (within reason) because they are scared.
And to double down you just said “many cases of people being killed for this very reason?”
So yea, “many cases” isn’t the same as “all the time”. Is that really your contention? LMAO.. You said something patently false and borderline preposterous. Nice backpedal until you did it again.
So stop scaring people.
Trash.
Your lack of selection demonstrates an ignorance that cannot be overcome.
Patients die in hospitals on a daily basis. All patients are fed hospital food. Therefore the increased death in hospitals comes from hospital food. That is your logic.
No, the argument is that more guns makes you safer. I have read and heard state legislators say this. But the stats say more guns makes for more gun deaths. Simple correlation really.
Now you may argue that guns are a necessary item for survival just like food. I think that is a pretty poor analogy. Guns in our society are not necessary for survival. If we have come to that point, our society is doomed.
Bill,
Not sure if you have been paying attention but our society is doomed.
Washington state has seen a over dose rate jump 28% from March22 to March23.
Crime has skyrocketed in major cities.
Gang related gun deaths are common in some cities like Chicago.
People cannot define what a woman is. And they are college educated.
Despite all the evidence, some are calling for reinstating mask mandates and social distancing again.
Our society is circling the drain. At any given time we are three days from chaos.
So, yes, a gun is necessary for survival.
“Not sure if you have been paying attention but our society is doomed.”
This view is so sad. so so sad. Such a pessimistic view on life. I really feel sorry for you and anyone near you. Life is wonderful, so full of wonderful things and people. If you think we are already doomed, please take your guns and a bit of food and hide in your bunker. Society will be better off for your action.
Not at all.
Just doing the analysis based on the information we see and read in the news.
A lot of my neighbors think an feel the same way. We can define what a woman is. We help each other and even people we do not know around here. We just had a birthday party for a friend. Good times all around.
Sure. I will have my guns and my food. No worries here.
If there are zero guns, there will be zero deaths from guns.
If there are a million guns in the hands of a million good people, there will be little death.
If there are 100 guns in the hands of killers, there will be a lot of deaths.
We then get to the benefits of guns. Many lives are saved because good people carry guns. You don’t include that in your statistics.
Bad people will use whatever weapons they can get their hands on.
I advocate that people who hate the ownership of guns by other people place a sign on their lawns saying gun-free zone. Check the statistics afterward and see who was invaded.
I live much of my time in a state where guns are permitted. Most of the people in my area carry guns. We don’t have many problems.
From what I read Chicago is gun-free, yet a lot of kids are killed by guns. Shootings are almost a daily event. Doesn’t that tell you anything?
“We then get to the benefits of guns. Many lives are saved because good people carry guns. You don’t include that in your statistics.” Incorrect, those stats are included. They did not take out incidents where a gun was used for good. This was all gun related deaths.
No doubt, many lives are saved. Many lives are also lost. How many tragic gun deaths do we read about on a weekly basis where a kid gets a gun and kills a sibling, playmate, parent, etc.? Happens all the time. And how many times have read about a stand your ground law that killed someone that made a mistake?
“From what I read Chicago is gun-free, yet a lot of kids are killed by guns. Shootings are almost a daily event. Doesn’t that tell you anything?” Yep, more guns = more gun deaths.
How are you going to get the criminals to obey some gun confiscation law?
Anonymous, if you say “Gun buy backs are effective there.”, prove it.
Some guy used a 3D printer to print some 110 lower receivers.
He got $21,000 in $500 gift cards.
Of note, the rest of the guns at the gun buy back, most were old, un-serviceable, a few with the serial numbers filed off.
Gun buy backs are great! I turned in an old .38 that I inherited and received $50, which I used towards the purchase of an Sig Sauer P365 9 mm.
This wins the comment of the day!
Agreed!
Bill, you missed the point. The statistics not only have to account for all the deaths, but then one has to subtract the lives saved.
Additionally, one has to break down the deaths into categories.
Law enforcement
Suicide
One criminal kills another
and so on.
You don’t do that. Your statistics are incomplete and valueless in this discussion.
You have to then take your numbers and see how they would apply in different areas. Guns are illegal in Chicago. How many shootings are there every week? Then you have to ask yourself why.
Finally, you have to deal with philosophical things based on reality. Read Bastiat. “What is seen and what is not seen”?
Bill’s stats are indefensible, and his conclusion is laughable. They, like most lefty dogma need only confirm a bias, not actually prove anything.
How many tragic gun deaths do we read about on a weekly basis where a kid gets a gun and kills a sibling, playmate, parent, etc.? Happens all the time.
No, actually, it happens very seldom. Children are more likely to die from drowning in a bucket of water than from an accidental shooting. And they’re far more likely to die from drowning in a swimming pool.
And how many times have read about a stand your ground law that killed someone that made a mistake?
Again, very seldom, and far less often than someone who didn’t make a mistake, and is unharmed only because he was armed.
S. Meyer,
Criminals, by their nature do not obey laws.
Even if by something short of a miracle they could get all law abiding citizens to turn in their guns, the criminals would still have them and embolden to use them more so on a disarmed population.
Also, criminals still wanting guns, creates a new revenue stream for the cartels running our southern border. Not only would we have the illegal migrant crisis, the drug crisis but then a in flow of guns to those criminals in cities like Chicago.
“Criminals, by their nature do not obey laws.”
Upstate, that adds to what Bill has to consider. If there were no criminals or bad people, everyone could have guns, and there would be no deaths of the nature Bill is talking about.
That young man shot wouldn’t be dead. He would be alive because the resident wouldn’t be concerned for his own life. Bill is typical. He adopts too many ideas that are not realistic and not based on facts or statistics.
S. Meyer,
That is part of the problem they have. They think they can legislate morality.
In the past they passed laws to punish criminal behavior and actions.
But as of late, they have passed laws reducing punishment of criminals and criminalizing law abiding citizens. No wonder people are scared.
Of note, some 40% of new gun buyers are minorities and women. Good for them I say.
Also of note, gun purchases went up during COVID but surged during and after the 2020 fiery but mostly peaceful Summer of Love.
Even if by something short of a miracle they could get all law abiding citizens to turn in their guns, the criminals would still have them and embolden to use them more so on a disarmed population.
Now suppose that, by some miracle, you could confiscate all the criminals’ guns as well. Never mind how, suppose you could. Would that be a good thing, to disarm everyone, both criminals and victims? No, it would be a horrible thing. Because it would leave the criminals free to prey on everyone else. They wouldn’t need guns. A gun-free society is more dangerous than one with guns. As the saying goes, God made people, but Sam Colt made them equal.
No, Chicago is not “gun-free.” They have not confiscated guns in Chicago – yet.
You are correct. I shouldn’t have used the term gun-free. Instead Chicago has gun restrictions that are one of the most severe in the nation.
However, there are shootings almost daily in Chicago.
Bill, I note that after I spent the time providing you a link to John Solomon’s most recent posts and I think, another recent post, I heard nothing. When you ask for something, and it is provided for you, the least a polite person can do is acknowledge receipt of the information.
I am not asking you to agree with Solomon, only to look at how he documents what he says with the pertinent data. That is something you don’t do. If you did, the discussions would be interesting because both sides would deal with solid facts. Presently, the progressive side is dealing with fantasy and statistically unreliable data.
Our local stink bug commented but the pest control man already went by trying to control the spread of Lyme, so I copy his post.
“Allan regularly ignores posts that include outside information directed at him. He’s too lazy and biased to consider anything that isn’t presented to him through the silo of information sources he consumes. Laughable that he maintains otherwise given his dedication to falsehood and disingenuousness. Not a bigger liar to be found, actually.
bug”
You have been stung too many times infecting your brain. Alcohol will not reverse the process so stop drinking. You will not become smart but you will stop slobbering all over yourself.
“Oh snap. Allan tries to get clever. I stand by my original statement.”
Funny Bug, I don’t see you standing anywhere, but we can smell the stink. LOL
Bill, do you note that in leftist NYC crime has risen and people are not safe? Is that because of more guns on the street or because the left permits crime to occur? Some people were murdered after a person was released from jail without bail. What do you have to say?
Bill, there were no changes in gun laws in San Fransisco, yet companies are moving out. That includes stores such as pharmacies that people have a great need for.
Leftism is causing the crime in San Fransisco, not guns. What do you have to say?
” But the stats say more guns makes for more gun deaths. Simple correlation really.”
No, Bill, they don’t. The stats you look at are not selective. Therefore, they show correlation, not causation.
“Now you may argue that guns are a necessary item for survival just like food. I think that is a pretty poor analogy. “
I don’t argue guns are more necessary than food. But that is another generalization that provides information that can easily be turned. On the battlefield, guns are more important than a peanut butter sandwich, which one can have after the battle ends. Do you see how valueless your statement is?
“Guns in our society are not necessary for survival.”
Somebody doesn’t watch the news, or wishes to evade it.
LOL, you keep saying it like it’s true, it’s not. 1. More guns does not equal more gun deaths and 2. gun deaths do not equate to overall safety.
Again, there are some correlations with gun homicides and overall safety, but you don’t want to believe them, but know that it isn’t the number of guns.
“1. More guns does not equal more gun deaths “
Neil, I am full of questions today. Can you help me out? If as Bill says, more guns equal more deaths, then if I have 20 guns at home, am I twenty times more likely to kill someone than if I had only one gun?
Thank you.
Generally, the correct answer is 1/Bill.
“Neil, I am full of questions today. Can you help me out? If as Bill says, more guns equal more deaths, then if I have 20 guns at home, am I twenty times more likely to kill someone than if I had only one gun?”
If so, I am in big trouble.
Don’t argue with Bill, he read it in Salon!
The United States Secret Service disagrees.
Also, i recommend reading the Emberverse series to find out what would happen if the laws of physics changed such that electrictyy no longer functions, and things no longer explode (which make disable all firearms).
Michael T Ejercito,
I got about 20 pages into that book and then used it to start fire in the wood stove.
It was that bad.
One thing the author did not consider: Air rifles. They make them as large as .50 caliber and take down a deer at 100yrds.
Guns make you safer if you live around violent criminals (blue cities, primarily), they aren’t terribly necessary for self-defense or statistically problematic, elsewhere.
E.g., you do not seem to see much blm or antifa violence in areas where there are liberal gun laws (not Liberal’s gun laws, just actual liberal ones)
No, Bill, the stats don’t say more guns make for more deaths. (They don’t even say they make for more gun deaths, but let’s suppose they did; that’s not the relevant statistic.) There is no reason why we should want to minimize gun deaths. What we want to minimize is deaths overall. More specifically, what we want to minimize is deaths of innocent people, and also robberies, rapes, and other crimes committed against innocent people. Deaths of thugs killed by their would-be victims are not a minus, they’re a plus; we should want to maximize those, not minimize them. And more guns makes for fewer deaths and other crimes against innocent people.
LOL. They don’t mention Hawaii, which is in the top 25% of gun ownership with 46% owning a gun, yet it has the lowest gun death on the chart ! Very low ! The lowest !
Ohh boy – it’s always spin crap and lying.
Was the student knocking on the door saying things like “come on guys, let me in” or was he trying to kick the door in while yelling obesities and threats through the door? Did the home owner wake up to someone pounding on the door and shot through it without any attempt to communicate?
I certainly hope the home owner attempted to communicate with the student a few times giving the student a reasonable chance to walk away before shooting through the door. Maybe this home owner tried to communicate with the student, I don’t know at this point in time. Maybe the student actually broke through the door and the home owner shot him when the door was open and he fell backward on the front porch. Aside from the law, there isn’t enough information provided by authorities to make any kind of moral judgement about the action of the home owner.
In my opinion; I understand the law but regardless of legalities, there are reasonable efforts that individuals should take to at least attempt communication especially when the possibility of a threat is blocked by a physical door thus making the threat not imminent, this would be the humane thing to do. This may not make a legal difference the way some laws are written but it does makes a moral difference.
I doubt that you’ve ever been in such a situation. You don’t have time to have a conference, you act – or possibly die.
semcgowanjr wrote, “I doubt that you’ve ever been in such a situation. You don’t have time to have a conference, you act – or possibly die.”
You don’t know me and you have no freaking idea what you’re talking about.
You’re wrong, dead wrong; I’ve had a number of drunken bone-heads trying to get through my family’s hotel room doors in the middle of the night thinking it was their room and I had enough adult restraint trained into me to not shoot them dead just because they were damn fools. One of them was a drunken Army Reservist that was staying there on a drill weekend and was on the wrong floor of the hotel. After the incident was over and the Reservists buddy got him, I woke up his Company Commander and let him know what happened. The next morning that same Reservist and his Company Commander politely knocked on my door to personally apologize and thanked me for my restraint, that Reservist’s face nearly fell off his head when he saw my fully loaded 1911 holstered on my side.
It’s quite simple, these situations are not in a combat zone and I don’t shoot through a freaking door unless I’m being shot at through that door. If a violent person ever get’s through a door that’s between me and them, they’ll only have one very brief heartbeat left to live.
After my Army career as an Infantry Instructor, I taught self defense and concealed carry courses for a number of years and I DO know what I’m talking about. I still instruct at an area pistol range when they need additional personnel.
Invader shoots you through the door:
“especially when the possibility of a threat is blocked by a physical door thus making the threat not imminent”
Sure thing
Shakdi wrote, “Invader shoots you through the door:”
Good luck with that one, I’ve been tactically trained and I’m not a fool standing in front of the door.
Could be more than one, would expect it on phi beta cappa row
“especially when the possibility of a threat is blocked by a physical door thus making the threat not imminent”
*comes in through the side window and slices your throat*
Shakdi wrote, “Could be more than one, would expect it on phi beta cappa row”, “comes in through the side window and slices your throat”
Attacking with a knife in the middle of a gunfight is not one of the better ideas.
Stupid people win stupid prizes.
If he comes in through the window, the homeowner is justified in shooting the person.
Circumstances lean towards the young man being very intoxicated to the point he could not find his way home.
So at 2AM…you are awakened from your peaceful slumber by some unknown person attempting a forced entry into your domicile.
At that point the Victim (the home owner) is confronted with a hurried reaction to what is a violent crime under the State Law. (Burglary/Breaking and Entering).
If South Carolina Law is similar to North Carolina Law then the issue of it being a dwelling house during the hours of darkness when occupants are normally asleep….that connotes aggravating circumstances that affords the Victim greater latitude.
To take another Human’s life is probably the most serious decision we can be confronted with in life.
I would hope the Victim felt endangered (or that his family was….) by the dead Kid’s actions and that there is physical evidence to substantiate his account.
That does not matter much due to the South Carolina laws posted by the Professor.
We all must take responsibilities for our actions….trying to forcefully enter a strangers home at 2AM is an act fraught with peril….and rightfully does in South Carolina.
The Home Owner will now have to live with his conscience no matter what the Legal System decides…..and so does everyone who is suffering from the loss of this young Man.
Hopefully, this tragedy will bring home the message that allowing yourself to become impaired to the point you cannot find “home” is a very bad thing to do.
Now we wait…..for the truth of the circumstances to be reported following a proper investigation of what led to the shooting and to what extent the Student provoked the shooting.
My question as an investigator would focus upon the Student’s impairment (if any) and the actual events at the scene of the shooting….did the Victim call the Police, was the Student outside or inside, and just how violent was the Student’s actions, and did he pose an immediate threat to the Victim.
I would want to determine “why” the Victim decided to shoot the Student and the exact manner and circumstances how it happened.
State Law, on the initial account of the event, favors the Home Owner and not the Student.
Hopefully a thorough investigation can answer the many questions you raise.
Considering the young man was in his second year of college, he was probably not yet of drinking age.
2am in a college town frequently means coming home from the bars, so without further information I would speculate — and it’s only speculation — that alcohol may have contributed to the deceased having attempted to enter the wrong building. If so, chalk another death up to John Barleycorn.
That was my first thought, as well.
Thise below, already castigating an unidentified shooter would do well to remember that they know absolutely nothing about him or her, their home, their lives, their experiences. Perhaps they have small children to protect, perhaps they’ve been threatened by another individual and feared it was that person trying to break in and do them harm.
It was 2 AM, people! Someone unauthorized was trying to enter their home!
And yes, it’s a tragedy, but, like all tragedies,it’s the flaw of the central character which brought his downfall. He was, for whatever reason, trying to enter a house he had no right to enter.
I’ll never forget coming home with my (single) mother one evening past dark. The nearest neighbors were over a mile away on a gravel road in the heart of Appalachia.
There sitting at the kitchen table was Otis, a completely illiterate old moonshiner who lived up in the hills in a ‘shanty’ shack of old boards and discarded newspaper he used for insulation.
My mother, who knew Otis, said ‘Now Otis you know you’re not supposed to be here”. Otis, clearly past inebriated on a fresh run of Shine, looked up at mom grinning and said’ “Mabel, you sure do have purtty house”.
note. even at that young age (11 yr) I had a gun (for squirrels and such) .. . but never thought it would be necessary to shoot Otis.
Moral of story: throw out the Tv, eat a few peaches and move to the country.
*living in the city now, I no longer bother with guns .. . and count on my charm, good looks and a long tongue to resolve conflicts.
But this was in the evening, not the wee hours, and the invader was known to you.
Imagine being awakened by violent battering of your door, calling the police, they don’t come quickly, the batttering continues. We do not know whether the young man actually breached the house – he may have.
*moved from the city to the country a long time ago; as a single, aging woman, I keep a loaded six-gun by my bed, and readily to hand. I’ve never had to use it.
Probably best, as the saying goes, to ‘have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.’
*I’ve needed a gun and not had it .. . luckily the Marines were just down the road.
Dgsnowden,
When it absolutely has to be destroyed overnight, they call us Marines to do the job.
Amen. .. they stop shooting at me when the Marines showed up!
Wasn’t Otis the drunk on the Andy Griffith show who always locked himself in a cell to get the free breakfast?
That was a different Otis .. . but I think they were related.
My Otis still spoke the Kings English.
*Andy Griffith Mayberry RFD should be required training for all law enforcement imo.
Very tragic indeed, but would I have done the same thing? Probably. My guess is at 2:00 in the morning, this student was probably impaired- is that the fault of the homeowner? In today’s world the bad actors are starting to outnumber the good ones and unfortunately you have to assume that someone is up to no good trying to enter your home in the middle of the night.
I would have stood inside my door and racked my shotgun. That’s a sound anyone will recognize, whether he speaks English or not. If he then continues to break in, I know he has criminal intentions and I will protect my family.
Apart from any legal protections homeowners enjoy they also have a moral responsibility to use lethal force judiciously.
That sentiment is somewhat like the article’s comment, “Critics of these laws have long maintained that they encourage the use of deadly force when the common law offers ample protections.” Aside from the last laughable bit about ample protection via common law, I cannot imagine that most people want to shoot and kill someone, even if they are entering their house – I believe that most people pull the trigger only when they believe it is their only option. YMMV.
To argue the judgement of the ‘defender’ of the home is moot. That individual will have to live with it. It is what it is. Either change the law or live with its consequences.