News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, that's more than just trying to walk into the wrong house when you're blackout drunk, so I can see why they would consider it justified. But that's the word of the police, so we'll see if a different story comes out later.
We'll only ever hear one side of this story because the other witness is dead.
No, they have physical evidence, audio evidence which probably means camera or video doorbell and the kid died on the front porch of someone else's house. Seems like the story told itself. The simple explanation is he tried breaking into the wrong house thinking it was his own.
Not saying he deserved to die over his mistake, it's tragic and sad that the situation occurred.
Editing to add this from the article:
"evidence gathered at the scene, review of surveillance video that captures moments before the shooting, audio evidence, and witness statements."
What would the other side of the story be? That he was breaking into his own house, but that the gun was fired from someone that had already broken into his own house and was wrongfully residing there? The facts are pretty basic here.
You are reading as though it is undisputed facts. One reason it is undisputed is because the victim is dead. For one it would be nice to see how likely it was he actually broke glass or reached inside. Was it clear video from a camera at the door? Or some grainy footage from a neighbor across the street? It doesn't say.
Yikes. This is terrifying.
I feel bad for the owner who had to make a split second decision on what to do.
Because not much difference between rowdy drunk kid and a mentally deranged person. And making the wrong choice could mean your whole family is in danger.
20 years old is an grown man, not a kid.
Hard to imagine I'd not do the same thing if that happened to my house with my family home.
Would you have possibly tried, I dunno, yelling first? Seems like if you're already armed there wouldn't be much danger in say "WHAT THE FUCK ARE DOING?". It says nowhere in this story they actually tried stopping him, just that they phoned the cops, window broke, they shot him.
It also doesn't say if they didn't. We have no reason to believe that they didn't yell at him.
But yeah, if someone pounds on my door at 2am, then tries to force the door open, then smashes my window to try and unlock the door, I'm not waiting til they get inside to see if they are peaceful.
Not risking my life or the lives of my wife and kids on wishful thinking. It's a tragedy that the guy lost his life, it really is. But he didn't exactly leave a lot of wiggle room for the homeowners in the house he was invading.
So what you're saying is literally you have a gun drawn down, you are ready to fire, and you still do not attempt yelling first?
Did I say that?
Or did you say that?
Or ya know, shooting at leg-level? Shooting the hand that was trying to manipulate the door knob?
What makes you think they didn't do that? Why is your default assumption that they just started firing?
Maybe the part where I read the article and it says nothing about an attempt to confront before shooting?
Ah yes, police are known to release all information immediately and also news articles are absolutely known to do the same. Thanks for reminding me!
You're taking the worst possible interpretation and running with it. I recommend not doing that
That's what I'm thinking. Call the police first?! That's a normal response. Not reach for a gun and shoot the person to death. And the student didn't get inside. I thought an intruder who could be killed was someone who made it inside. So anyone outside the door is fair game, even if they're knocking and banging?
They literally did that.
Breaking a window and then attempting to open the door is enough to justify killing in self defense under local laws, even if the intruder has not entered the building yet.
The article is specifically written to have a headline that implies someone got away with murder, to get traffic. The point of articles like this is to profit, not to inform.
Man shot while breaking and entering, is a much less profitable headline.
Before you get to the point of destroying your own property, you should have already double checked which unit you're at, whether a family member has a spare key, or whether someone you know can let you stay the night so you can call a locksmith in the morning. It's entirely reasonable for someone inside to think that it's an attempted break-in, so even if the guy just made a really bad choice that ended in tragedy, I don't blame the shooter for thinking it was a robbery, and not wanting to risk the supposed robber having a weapon. It's not an easy choice to make in that situation.
When I was in college I had this happen multiple times. In different apartments but they all looked similar.
Even had one dude peeing on the floor in my bathroom because I roommate was next door and didn’t lock the door. Dude was in the right apartment number, just off one building.
Even had a couple get aggressive and try to fight me.
Still, never shot anyone over it (and I was and am a gun owner. )
Don't you think it might've been different if it was your own home (instead of a rented dorm/apartment), and instead of roommates you had a wife and possibly other family members in the home?
This is true, and nuance is key.
But at the same time, at least in my college town, the houses on and around campus, certainly within 2 miles, were generally
Quite often used as rentals for college kids, VERY few families actually lived there, in fact i never remember seeing families in them.
Working class adults were more or less segregated further off campus, largely due to the riffraff.
So yes, it would be a bit different now as I do not live near a college campus. But if i did, and it was often that there were drunk college kids, the witching out after the bars let out would usually be times when ruckus was occuring. So situationally, i would be much less likely to use a gun in a case like that. I would likely have it on me while I assessed the situation but much less likely to use it.
Thats just me though. And FWIW i did live in houses off campus in my later years, and much of the same bullshit would occur. Maybe it was just a different time. I was not much of a partier, and took some hard sciences so often I was leaving the library when the drunks let out. And some of the shit they would pull....Lets just say I would never live near other college kids again.
It doesn't say if the people in the home ever told him to stop. Did he know there were people in there? If he did, why did he break the window?
He thought he was locked out of his home I'm sure.
Ouch. Yep, that's justifiable homicide
Not in my state. No deadly threat, no clear intent to commit a felony. Breaking in is not enough for precisely this reason: the person entering may have a mistaken claim of right.
Breaking and entering isn't a felony in your state????, huh...
Only if done with criminal intent. You know, you're allowed to break into your own house.
If you think it's your house and it's not, your mistaken claim of right negates the intent. You might assume your lock broke or something and your only intent is to get inside and take your drunk ass to sleep.
This is scenario where you wake up and find a trespasser asleep on your couch, you can't just murder them, even if you can see evidence that they broke the window to get in.
There is no duty to retreat in the home, but deadly force is still only authorized to counter deadly force.
In places authorizing deadly force to repel a felonious entry, the intent to commit crimes once inside supplies the justification for force. You cannot know the intention from the mere fact that they are breaking in. That's why you can't blindly fire through the door at someone trying to break your door in.
If the person ignores commands to stop, ignores warnings, threatens you, says something like "this is a robbery," or has a weapon, that's a different story; there, it's reasonable to infer their criminal intent.
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.
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.
Obviously you're wrong about castle doctrine because this guy isn't being charged.
Yeah some backwards country sheriff, ignoring law, bastardizing castle doctrine.
What if this guy throws an empty beer bottle through the window and it strikes an occupant or uses the wood splitting axe on the front lawn to smash the door frame? Does the nature of the entry matter at all? Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand. I had a similar conversation down this line of thought with a friend who is a cop in a state without castle. I left that conversation somewhat bewildered by how much an intruder can get away with in proximity to my person before I am legally able to use or even brandish a weapon on them.
Beer bottle, no. No deadly threat. Person is still outside.
If they have an axe in their hand they have a weapon, you can infer their intent to do crimes once inside. No question as to reasonableness of fear for safety. I'd still warn a bunch of times and command them to stop, and I'd only shoot if it was clear they were coming inside.
The thing to remember is that it's all evaluated from the standpoint of self defense of your person, not property. Deadly force is never authorized to protect mere property.
I guess where I have the hardest part with this is around the “infer” — I personally feel it’s a bit too much to ask an occupant to attempt to read an unfolding situation clearly, accurately, and quickly enough when things are going down in real-time. “Someone is forcing entry into my dwelling, but do they intend to harm me or simply watch Netflix with me?”
I guess I just disagree with the law, but then again my mind always goes to the most unsettling scenarios and probably not those that are statistically most likely. For instance, when you wrote elsewhere about waking up and finding an intruder in your home asleep on your couch, my mind immediately went to: “Ok, but what if I wake up and find an intruder fully alert, not touching anything, but standing in the doorway of my daughter’s bedroom and staring at her as she sleeps?” The amount of time and the element of surprise that I would lose to correctly deduce this person's intentions (assuming they wouldn’t try to deceive me, which is a whole ‘nother rabbit hole) could mean the difference between life and death/injury, given how easy and quick it is to kill someone with a concealed weapon. And though I suppose the same could be said of anywhere outside my home, too, I have to believe that I am statistically in more danger from someone who has forced entry into my home than someone just passing by me at the supermarket.
By the way, I fully recognize that what you’re saying is the correct interpretation of the law and tracks with what my LEO friend told me. I just don’t like, haha!
Cheers!
Thank you for recognizing. It sounds complicated but it's really not, and I think you do like it, without fully realizing it.
To your point, you can jump to reasonable conclusions without having to be a mind reader.
On finding an alert intruder, you give clear commands. Should be able to be pretty sure of their intent pretty quickly after that.
Sometimes, there's nothing you can do, and you get murdered in your sleep, very rare though. One thought there is to outsource the job of issuing commands and waking you up to a burglary alarm. If you wake up to a stranger who is not warded off by a blaring alarm, that tells you a lot about what they're doing.
If I roll out of bed to the sounds of someone banging on my door, trying my doorknob, then breaking a window to get in - I'm probably going to believe that shots will start flying through the door in my direction if I confront them at that point, and/or that they intend to harm me or my family, not that they will politely go away if I ask them to, especially in the fog of having just awakened.
I'm not a gun owner, but if I had one, I doubt I'd consider a warning in that case. Without the escalation to smashing my window I'm likely to handle it differently.
Same thing happens in the middle of the day while I'm wide awake, maybe I interpret it differently. Maybe.
I agree that deadly force isn't appropriate to protect property. I don't agree that protecting property is what was likely going through this person's head.
Okay, well, it's justifiable homicide in South Carolina