He didn’t just accidentally enter the wrong home, he was forcibly breaking into the home when he was shot. Even breaking a window to open the door from the inside.
Tragic as he was likely just intoxicated and confused, but understandable that the homeowner would use force to defend himself
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 that struck Donofrio in his upper body, according to police
He was literally breaking through the door to enter the house.
What was the home owner supposed to do? Hope he became non-violent once he got in? Challenge him to a game of chess? Declare a set of non-lethal rules and duke it out?
The homeowner has a right to not be attacked in his own home ffs
Idk. Maybe yell, “Hey. Fuck off” and call the police? If it is a drunk person, they probably embarrassingly realize it’s the wrong house. Or if they keep trying to get in after, then shoot?
Also the home owner wasn’t attacked. His window was.
You may want to read the article - they did call the police. Unfortunately it takes less time for someone to violently smash through a door than for the cops to arrive.
Interesting that you summize that they were apparently silent as this guy smashed their door
And, would you really play the odds that someone violently entering your house would suddenly have a moment of clarity when they entered? He was messed up enough to think shattering his own window was a viable option to get into his house.
But they never tried yelling at him, did they? Even after he had a firearm, the article says nothing about calling out with a warning first or anything. That seems insane to me.
He mightve thought he was trying to enter his house. However breaking a window and reaching for the lock is a good way to get either shot or arrested for b&o even if he is drunk as a skunk.
Bro banged on the door and broke a window to try to get in. He was literally forcefully entering a locked house, he didn’t just wander into an unlocked door by mistake.
No telling what the kid was trying to do or would have done if he got in. Home owners have to assume the person trying to kick in the door and breaking a window is there to do harm. Justified self defense to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
By all accounts he thought he was entering his own home, thought he was breaking his own windows, etc. Seems to me like a little more dialog and this kid’s still alive and a broken window is the worst part of the event. With castle doctrine laws the way they are mistakes and misunderstandings are much more likely to become fatal.
Not being allowed to defend yourself until the intruder finishes breaking in to your home and attacks you simply means self-defense isn't allowed, because at that point you're probably already dead.
You have to judge it from the perspective if the person living there. They hear someone banging on their door, trying to get into the house, breaking the window and forcing their way in. They had absolutely no reason to believe this was a simple misunderstanding, and every reason to believe their life was in danger.
This wasn't a kid knocking at the wrong door in the middile of the day.
This was a 2 AM and break in where the guy busted a window to get at the door handle. This is WAY MORE than just knocking or a misunderstanding. I would agree that mistakes or even simple burglary don't deserve the death penalty, BUT... if he was aggressive enough to be smashing things in the middle of the night after banging on the door and windows, then what would he also be aggressive and mistaken about when he got inside? At a certain point being concerned for your own safety is legitmate and we crossed that line awhile ago.
I’m always glad that in these cases cooler heads prevail and resolve the problem adequately- and that those cooler heads are the best ones to deal with the situation-
Because if I was there, I would have murdered that punk, no question.
It ain’t murder if it’s justified. You’re allowed to use lethal force to stop someone from killing someone else. it doesn’t matter if that first someone happens to be 14, 24, or 94. Sure, you have to stop using lethal force just as soon as the threat is gone… and it’s hard to imagine the kind of lethal force that wouldn’t also put the victim in danger… but it ain’t murder if it’s justified.
I saw the video hours ago and yeah that officer really overstepped himself here. I’ve watched a lot of bodycam videos and some chases and more times - officers got the fuck out of the way when any vehicle was heading towards them. Smart officers shoot tires and use resourceful means to negate the criminal. Aggressive gun-happy officers just shoot away.
No one should be shooting at tires, that isn’t as easy as they make it in the movies (in this case yes it would have been). However, you should NEVER point a gun at something you do not intend to kill.
Yeah and let’s not forget this was simple shoplifting. A crime, sure, but not nearly one serious enough to start shooting at a fleeing suspect. Just let her go and issue a warrant.
I don’t consume conservative media, but I’m wondering is there some current of thought that’s leading to all these shootings after someone goes to the wrong door? Seems like there’s been a lot recently, and makes no sense to me.
If someone is breaking into your home, you should defend yourself and your family with whatever means is available. The amount of people here saying you should have a polite conversation or comply with the robber's demands (even if that demand is to harm you) is bizarre.
No one was actually breaking into their home though. Literally nothing would have happened to that home owner if he had been less trigger-happy and tried to comminucate with the kid.
The problem is you can’t judge people’s actions on what we know after the fact, you have to look at what the person knew in the moment, and for the residents, it sure seemed like someone was breaking into their house, and it’s not reasonable to expect to have a dialogue with a burglar.
So, defending yourself is only valid once you're actually in the process of being killed? A bit too late at that point. Someone physically breaking into your home is a valid reason to use force in response.
A bit too late at the imaginary non event in your head?
But the definition of threat is what you described. It is a threat against your life which this was not and its why this is tragic because failing to assess caused an unnecessary death.
So, again, someone physically breaking open your door, who has unknown weapons themselves including a potential gun, should be something you do nothing about? Just let them in and hope they don't mean to kill you?
What im wandering is this: is this one of those houses where you have to enter the yard in order to ring the bell/knock on the door? If so, this is an actual death trap - you dont know if this is the right house, and in order to verify you have to step into the property where you may be legally shot.
How do you protect yourself when you have to visit a house but are not sure which is the correct one?
I think there is a low in the US that if someone infiltrates your property you can legally shoot to kill. Not sure about the specifics. I assume this case was either too extreme or that there are more specifics to this law.
You’re talking about “Stand Your Ground” laws. They allow you to shoot in self-defense when someone enters your home or otherwise threatens you. This is why George Zimmerman got off after murdering a child. Don’t forget, kids, George Zimmerman killed a child.
Being on your property probably doesn’t count in most states, but I say “probably” because some states are fucking insane, so who knows.
Hey now, that’s not fair. Zimmerman stalked a child through the night after police told him not to, started a fistfight with that child, and only murdered the child after it became evident that he was losing the fight he started.
That’s what stand your ground is for, shooting your way out of fights you start. Ask Marissa Alexander, it’s certainly not for firing warning shots at your abusive ex husband when he’s on your property in violation of a restraining order and threatening your kids.
These laws, castle doctrine, are not anywhere near that crazy. They’re the same idea as self defense… however, normally you have a “duty to retreat”, what castle doctrine says is if you’re in your own home you no longer have that obligation.
You still have to meet the bar for self defense, i.e., they need to be a threat… someone walking in your yard or knocking on your door that’s not brandishing a weapon is not going to meet that bar.
Edit: Wikipedia disagrees with me … though I’m not sure if that’s a factual disagreement or an editorial disagreement.
Justifiable homicide[2] in self-defense which happens to occur inside one’s home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine. The burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying homicide in self-defense. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide in self-defense provision pertaining to one’s domicile, it has a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.
There’s a lack of citation here which honestly should probably be raised on the wiki. The cited source does not support that text (I’ve added the appropriate citation requests on the wikipedia side – if anyone can prove these claims, we should contribute the reference there as well).
The laws on self-defense are extremely state specific. Your understanding of self defense laws is highly sensationalized and I recommend in the strongest possible terms you do some research before they become relevant to you personally one way or the other.
My posts here were full of “i think” and “not sure”. Also not sure which part here was an opinion.
And this is the internet. Not an academic paper. This IS the place to ask/discuss topics you are not sure about. Just dont go around claiming to be an expert in something you are not.
The argument is mostly valid. But the real point is that capital gains tax needs to change. That would solve the stated problem, without reducing home ownership.
As a result, a majority of the population is literally invested in seeing the value of homes always go up.
This is actually not true. In general, ome owners do not benefit from global house price increases.
If they are US routes or interstates then yes. If they are state or county/township roads than probably not. Though if I recall correctly if a local road has an over/underpass of an interstate federal funds could be used to help maintain or rebuild those bridges. That part I'm fuzzy on though so could be wrong.
That’s horrible. It would be bad for public health to leave corpses rotting in the street. Bodies need to be properly disposed of to avoid breeding dangerous bacteria.
I believe one thing about UK policing is correct. Unless there’s reason for officers to be armed, they’re not even carrying guns. I realize that’s untenable in the US because of the proliferation of handguns but here in Canada, I think it should be policy.
Why can’t those 107 genders fall under T for trans? I feel old for saying this, but if you don’t identify with your birth gender then doesn’t that make a person trans? Why do they need a extra letter on LGBT for it?
I don’t know, I don’t subscribe to any of that shit. I don’t care whatya do in your personal life but if you come up to me and look like a guy, I’m gonna say what up dude. You get offended by that ya can GFY lol
No, I couldn’t give a shit what you do in your life. I’m not changing for anyone, I am me. If you don’t like it, go elsewhere. If that’s transphobic, sure what ever. I really don’t care because it doesn’t affect my life
But your actions affect others, you being unwilling to properly gender a person means that others hate will reach them easier. Just because you aren’t being affected doesn’t mean you can’t help things improve. And if you aren’t willing to gender somebody properly, what did you think that made you before? It’s simply hateful.
So if the CEO of the company you worked for introduced himself with male pronouns but you thought he looked feminine, you’d call him by female pronouns? Or if you got pulled over by a female officer but she looked masculine to you, you’d call her “Sir”? Yikes. It sounds to me like you just like having a shitty excuse to disrespect people.
I’d love if we could get to a place where the Q encompasses all of the identities. As it stands, it feels like Queer has taken on an identity of its own.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.