• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wrong door shootings.

Thermal said:
Not getting the tragedy here at all.

College student goes to wrong house at 2AM. So after banging on door, etc, he...punches through the glass??? That's excessively violent for a college kid, to be destroying the rental place he (thought he) lived in. Taking bets he was high as a kite and/or a history of violent behavior that mom and dad swept under the rug.

And our brave homeowners were cowed by some college kid? The guy doesn't know how to open the door and say "wtf is your problem, kid?", with gun in hand if he was really pissing his pants over this kid (and with a college nearby, the homeowner was likely familiar with drunk students bumbling around in the middle of the night).

Do you typically smash the front door glass to gain entry for any reason of a house that in any case wasn't even yours? Do you shoot first and ask the borderline child if he is at the right place later?

The story reads to me more like "Violent Brat meets Violent Homeowner itching to shoot someone". Not a classic tragedy to my eyes. More of a sociopath's meet-cute. Maybe meet-shoot?
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's easy to make monsters of either of them. I see a frightened homeowner (however irrationally) and an impatient and somewhat aggressive student that thinks they're only breaking into their own residence. Neither of those are really worth a life and death situation, and that it ended in a death is still a tragedy. They're people, flawed as they are.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's easy to make monsters of either of them. I see a frightened homeowner (however irrationally) and an impatient and somewhat aggressive student that thinks they're only breaking into their own residence. Neither of those are really worth a life and death situation, and that it ended in a death is still a tragedy. They're people, flawed as they are.
Click to expand...

Agree, but it is only 'tragic' because of the malignant effect our gun worshiping society has had on otherwise sane people. I disagree with Thermal that Donofrio was likely violent, i think he was definitely very drunk though and that contributed to his death. I don't think his breaking the glass was necessarily a violent action, it could easily have been an act of extreme frustration while under the influence, or perhaps anger in a mistaken belief that people who knew him weren't letting him in. We will never know. The surveillance video might offer some clues. The oddest part about the story, which makes no sense to me absent more details, is what sort of communication went on between the parties. Did the homeowner make any attempt to figure out what was going on? Did he warn the deceased that he was armed? What did Donofrio say, if anything? Just amazes me since this could have been easily diffused if either party had made some effort to evaluate the situation. But as unfortunately, as always seems to be the case in these disturbing incidents, it is always shoot first, ask questions later, and the stand your ground laws fully promote that stupidity.
 
With all due respect tho the gnome and stanfr: I think you are underestimating the level of violence reflected by a school kid putting his fist through the glass door, whether it's on mom and Dad's house, or his rented school apartment. It takes a special kind of sweetheart to get that nasty. Irate and annoyed drunks don't get that gnarly. Genuinely violent people do. The kind that go in to tune up whoever's door they just smashed their way through. Sorry, I can't "boys will be boys" that ****.

Eta: oh, and tales lie this have nothing to do with SYG laws. They just make it easier. The kind of psycho that kills a kid did not become a kid killing psycho because of SYG laws. It just greased the wheels for him.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Not getting the tragedy here at all.

College student goes to wrong house at 2AM. So after banging on door, etc, he...punches through the glass??? That's excessively violent for a college kid, to be destroying the rental place he (thought he) lived in. Taking bets he was high as a kite and/or a history of violent behavior that mom and dad swept under the rug.

And our brave homeowners were cowed by some college kid? The guy doesn't know how to open the door and say "wtf is your problem, kid?", with gun in hand if he was really pissing his pants over this kid (and with a college nearby, the homeowner was likely familiar with drunk students bumbling around in the middle of the night).

Do you typically smash the front door glass to gain entry for any reason of a house that in any case wasn't even yours? Do you shoot first and ask the borderline child if he is at the right place later?

The story reads to me more like "Violent Brat meets Violent Homeowner itching to shoot someone". Not a classic tragedy to my eyes. More of a sociopath's meet-cute. Maybe meet-shoot?
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this, aside from the conclusion it's not a tragedy. Unless we hear more about Nicholas Donofrio's personality, it sounds like a drunk college student trying to get into the wrong house, then escalating things by breaking glass to get at the lock. Alas, we'll never know if he would mature into a person contributing to society, or if the homeowners inadvertently removed a pain in the ass from the world, to the world's benefit.

I get why the homeowners were concerned, too. An angry and probably violent 20 year old male could cause considerable harm to the people residing inside. Or, if they barricaded themselves in a room, trash the place. Things can be replaced, but if he beat the man or the woman they could well receive life-changing injuries. So I'm not surprised the homeowner chose to shoot.


What I don't agree with is the decision not to charge the homeowner who fired the gun. Here in Canada, I suspect the police would lay a manslaughter charge and possibly one related to discharging the firearm, and let the court decided if he should go free.
 
Thermal said:
With all due respect tho the gnome and stanfr: I think you are underestimating the level of violence reflected by a school kid putting his fist through the glass door, whether it's on mom and Dad's house, or his rented school apartment. It takes a special kind of sweetheart to get that nasty. Irate and annoyed drunks don't get that gnarly. Genuinely violent people do. The kind that go in to tune up whoever's door they just smashed their way through. Sorry, I can't "boys will be boys" that ****.
Click to expand...

huh, they did all the time in my college partying days....usually total pussycats when sober :D

Eta: oh, and tales lie this have nothing to do with SYG laws. They just make it easier. The kind of psycho that kills a kid did not become a kid killing psycho because of SYG laws. It just greased the wheels for him.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said the SYG laws 'promote' and not cause the psychotic act.
 
Blue Mountain said:
I mostly agree with this, aside from the conclusion it's not a tragedy. Unless we hear more about Nicholas Donofrio's personality, it sounds like a drunk college student trying to get into the wrong house, then escalating things by breaking glass to get at the lock. Alas, we'll never know if he would mature into a person contributing to society, or if the homeowners inadvertently removed a pain in the ass from the world, to the world's benefit.

I get why the homeowners were concerned, too. An angry and probably violent 20 year old male could cause considerable harm to the people residing inside. Or, if they barricaded themselves in a room, trash the place. Things can be replaced, but if he beat the man or the woman they could well receive life-changing injuries. So I'm not surprised the homeowner chose to shoot.


What I don't agree with is the decision not to charge the homeowner who fired the gun. Here in Canada, I suspect the police would lay a manslaughter charge and possibly one related to discharging the firearm, and let the court decided if he should go free.
Click to expand...

If you're not surprised they would shoot, then you shouldn't be surprised he wasn't charged. I think it all depends on the exact circumstances, how much care was taken to ascertain the level of threat and objectively what was the threat. Which is why I would like to see the video cause it's the only objective evidence. The problem is the SYG law does make it easier for the homeowner to subjectively say they felt threatened, and the reasonableness of that assertion is dictated by the law itself.
 
It does seem that there's a horrible feedback loop in place in the US.

I cannot see how that feedback loop can ever be broken :(
 
Thermal said:
With all due respect tho the gnome and stanfr: I think you are underestimating the level of violence reflected by a school kid putting his fist through the glass door, whether it's on mom and Dad's house, or his rented school apartment. It takes a special kind of sweetheart to get that nasty. Irate and annoyed drunks don't get that gnarly. Genuinely violent people do. The kind that go in to tune up whoever's door they just smashed their way through. Sorry, I can't "boys will be boys" that ****.

Eta: oh, and tales lie this have nothing to do with SYG laws. They just make it easier. The kind of psycho that kills a kid did not become a kid killing psycho because of SYG laws. It just greased the wheels for him.
Click to expand...

School kid?
 
I think the legal issue here is the Castle Doctrine not Stand Your Ground. I think the time of the incident -- 2 am -- and the fact the occupants immediately called the police are also factors in the decision not to charge anyone. I have a hunch alcohol was involved but once the 20-year-old broke the door glass and reached inside he was committing unlawful entry. Or about to.

We don't know whether the occupants attempted to ask, 'Who are you? What do you want?' but they may have. But once Donofrio was about to get the door open and force his way into the house I can understand the occupant shooting him. I wish they hadn't but I can understand their reacting that way.
 
The Don said:
Mrs Don refers to University as "school" so that the question "Where did you go to school ?" is asking about where you went to university, not High School.
Click to expand...

I was wondering how a 20 year old could be described as a kid
 
Steve said:
I'm pushing 70. To me my 21yo daughter, her 23yo boyfriend, and all their friends, are kids.
Click to expand...

I'm nowhere near that, yet most people people under around 25 look like children to me.

Unless they go punching other people's windows in because they are mildly annoyed. Then they are ******* children.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think the legal issue here is the Castle Doctrine not Stand Your Ground. I think the time of the incident -- 2 am -- and the fact the occupants immediately called the police are also factors in the decision not to charge anyone. I have a hunch alcohol was involved but once the 20-year-old broke the door glass and reached inside he was committing unlawful entry. Or about to.

We don't know whether the occupants attempted to ask, 'Who are you? What do you want?' but they may have. But once Donofrio was about to get the door open and force his way into the house I can understand the occupant shooting him. I wish they hadn't but I can understand their reacting that way.
Click to expand...

No, the Castle Doctrine is the heart of the SYG law. It is what permits you to SYG.
The law encompasses both the doctrine and the right to self defense. The key legal issue, regardless of SYG, is "did the homeowner have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm?" SYG basically rubberstamps that--yeah, his fear was reasonable because he was in his house and the guy was breaking in, therefore he had no duty to retreat, he can fire at will.

I personally think that's nuts. I cant say for sure because I dont know all the details, but, depending on the circumstances, I can't 'understand' the reaction of shooting to kill because someone broke a window. Presumably it was a door window, possibly just big enough to reach a hand in. Donofrio was presumably trying to unlock the door. Because of SYG, the law in SC says, "yeah, it was perfectly reasonable for the homeowner to fire a deadly weapon through the window with intent to kill or disable the unarmed person outside, because he was lawfully in his house and the guy outside was unlawfully breaking in. Sure, one can understand the fear of the homeowner. But can one understand his lack of resposibility? I can't.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
No, the Castle Doctrine is the heart of the SYG law. It is what permits you to SYG.
The law encompasses both the doctrine and the right to self defense. The key legal issue, regardless of SYG, is "did the homeowner have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm?" SYG basically rubberstamps that--yeah, his fear was reasonable because he was in his house and the guy was breaking in, therefore he had no duty to retreat, he can fire at will.

I personally think that's nuts. I cant say for sure because I dont know all the details, but, depending on the circumstances, I can't 'understand' the reaction of shooting to kill because someone broke a window. Presumably it was a door window, possibly just big enough to reach a hand in. Donofrio was presumably trying to unlock the door. Because of SYG, the law in SC says, "yeah, it was perfectly reasonable for the homeowner to fire a deadly weapon through the window with intent to kill or disable the unarmed person outside, because he was lawfully in his house and the guy outside was unlawfully breaking in. Sure, one can understand the fear of the homeowner. But can one understand his lack of resposibility? I can't.
Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at earlier. Just a simple "dafuq is your problem, boy?" gun in hand, and everyone would have gone home alive, after the kid finally realized he was at the wrong place. Which, not for nuthin, is not exactly a sure thing here anyway.

Given the facts here (and dead student never having made a statement that he was at the wrong address that I know of), is it plausible that he was at the right address and had a score to settle with Yosemite Sam or his squeeze, that the couple didn't want to share the details of with police? I mean, I'd buy that as more likely than the current version.
 
It's worth investigating if you're an investigator, but the speculative nature makes it a very premature conclusion.
 
Thermal said:
That's what I was getting at earlier. Just a simple "dafuq is your problem, boy?" gun in hand, and everyone would have gone home alive, after the kid finally realized he was at the wrong place. Which, not for nuthin, is not exactly a sure thing here anyway.

Given the facts here (and dead student never having made a statement that he was at the wrong address that I know of), is it plausible that he was at the right address and had a score to settle with Yosemite Sam or his squeeze, that the couple didn't want to share the details of with police? I mean, I'd buy that as more likely than the current version.
Click to expand...

Occam's razor is that the student was very drunk, thought he was at his correct address, and drunkenly thought forcible entry was a justified response to finding himself locked out of his own home.
 
Thermal said:
With all due respect tho the gnome and stanfr: I think you are underestimating the level of violence reflected by a school kid putting his fist through the glass door, whether it's on mom and Dad's house, or his rented school apartment. It takes a special kind of sweetheart to get that nasty. Irate and annoyed drunks don't get that gnarly. Genuinely violent people do. The kind that go in to tune up whoever's door they just smashed their way through. Sorry, I can't "boys will be boys" that ****.

Eta: oh, and tales lie this have nothing to do with SYG laws. They just make it easier. The kind of psycho that kills a kid did not become a kid killing psycho because of SYG laws. It just greased the wheels for him.
Click to expand...

My brother once locked himself out of our rented home (just like a landlord using cheap knob locks rather than deadbolts) and nobody else was in town to let him back in and he had a very important appointment he couldn't be late to, so he kicked the door in.

I later chastised him that he should have broken a window instead because repairing the doorframe turned out to be relatively expensive.

I wouldn't assume that someone forcing entry necessarily is "violent". It's really not that unreasonable if you assume (wrongly in this case it seems) it's your house. Nothing wrong with kicking in your own door, though calling a locksmith will probably be cheaper in the long run if you have the time to wait.

I also recall the Henry Gates controversy, where trying to force open a jammed front door was mistaken for a burglary attempt. There's good reason why people might attempt forcible entry of their own homes.

Again, I'm assuming a college student returning to the wrong address after 2 am was almost certainly very intoxicated.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Occam's razor is that the student was very drunk, thought he was at his correct address, and drunkenly thought forcible entry was a justified response to finding himself locked out of his own home.
Click to expand...

Your Razor introduced facts not in evidence to spin a narrative. If the facts are laid out standalone, what do they actually describe?

Young male violently attempts to break down door at 2AM. Residents are a woman and man. Man arms himself and fires on intruder, killing him.

Note there is nothing in the reporting about the kid being drunk, nor having said a word to anyone. Nor did the occupants. So how was it determined that the kid was drunk and at the wrong house? They hold a seance or something? Sounds like the police took a guess (presumably because the kid lived nearby, although that hasn't been established well either) and closed the file. From a strictly factual standpoint, I see nothing to indicate that the narrative is true, any more than it just is convenient. No toxology report, no indication of how far away or how similar Yosemite Sam's house was to the kids apartment, nothing.

So what allows your "razor" to allow for so many facts not in evidence? Because the dead kid is a white boy, so he could only have the purest of motivations? "Oh, he's a nice college boy? Make up any excuses for him." Got any more stereotypes you'd like to shovel on to white wash this kid?

As I see it, it is just as plausible that he intended to rape the woman living inside, or the armed man burned him for a bag of coke, or whatever. Other facts besides "the popo say so" would possibly change this, but lacking them, I see no reason to make the intruder the victim of an innocent misunderstanding, especially because he was apparently shot with no reported attempts to even communicate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom