[LordOpie]

As opposed to Internet Matlocks who without even knowing the entire story, seeing a shred of evidence, or understanding what actually took place, will solve the case, condem the cops, and call it a day?

Speculation, and "maybe mongering" by the public and media is just as deadly, if not deadlier to people. Might as well put a giant scarlet letter on the accused chest and just be friggin done with it.

Unfortunately, without outrage, there'd be no investigation and subsequent improvement in the system.

So conversely, the media and public "mongering" will likely save far more lives, both those of the many good cops and the countless innocent bystanders.

 

[chillindrdude]

one, it is doubtful to me that the police did not knock or identified themselves prior to knocking down the door.

two, there is an expectation of reasonable surrender even when a door is knocked down. its called, "dropping anything in your hand, raising your hands above your head, and getting down on the ground"

three, it sure is easy for you to flap your mouth off about cowardism. when was the last time you put on body armor before leaving the house? when was the last time you thought that kiss from your significant other could be your last? the police put their lives at risk everyday to help prevent or stop crimes.

 

[RenegadeRick]

So here we go again.

Please allow me to explain how things (should) work in AMERICA.

Citizens are protected by the US Constitution and are considered INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

chillindrdude... In your first post you have this "scumbag" convicted before the door was even broken down. You do not KNOW what he did. I don't either. It is up to a COURT OF LAW and a JURY OF HIS PEERS to decide.

I am willing to accept a PS3 controller being mistaken for a gun, but I am unwilling to convict the guy without a trial. Since we don't try people posthumously, he will never be found guilty. That's just the way things work 'round these parts.

 

[LordOpie]

one, it is doubtful to me that the police did not knock or identified themselves prior to knocking down the door.

And yet, it happens almost every day that a cop somewhere fails to follow procedure.

two, there is an expectation of reasonable surrender even when a door is knocked down. its called, "dropping anything in your hand, raising your hands above your head, and getting down on the ground".

Really now? People are human and when a door gets knocked down, you can and should expect all kinds of responses.

when was the last time you put on body armor before leaving the house?

you wear your body armor to the paintball games?

 

[Lex]

one, it is doubtful to me that the police did not knock or identified themselves prior to knocking down the door.

two, there is an expectation of reasonable surrender even when a door is knocked down. its called, "dropping anything in your hand, raising your hands above your head, and getting down on the ground"

three, it sure is easy for you to flap your mouth off about cowardism. when was the last time you put on body armor before leaving the house? when was the last time you thought that kiss from your significant other could be your last? the police put their lives at risk everyday to help prevent or stop crimes.

What is cowardism? Oh wait. Do you mean cowardice?

 

[Silver]

when was the last time you thought that kiss from your significant other could be your last? the police put their lives at risk everyday to help prevent or stop crimes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20061031-22595300-bc-us-copskilled.xml

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_74.html

So, if I read that right, 55 officers were killed, out of a total of 673,146 in the US. (Don't know if the first or second numbers include prison guards...that could change the percentages slightly.)

That's 0.008% of total officers killed on duty in 2005.

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-22-us-highway-deaths_x.htm

43,443 motorists were killed on US highways last year. Taking the estimated population from the FBI link above of 279,200,617, I get 0.016% of the US population dying on the highways.

Looks to me like it's more deadly driving to work everyday than it is to be a police officer once you get there...

 

[binary visions]

What a stupid thread. Neither side even has the smallest basis for their position.

You can't make assumptions on either side. You've got a roommate giving his account which you have no reason to believe is anything like reality, not to mention it's sorely incomplete. What if the kid was deliberately using the PS3 controller to look like a gun, and threatened the officers with it? What if he told them his dog was a killer? What if they pulled his record and knew he had a license for several guns, and here he is possibly threatening them with one? He's already been violent in the robberies, so they have every reason to be more cautious.

Nobody knows a freakin' thing. There's an investigation going on. Let them investigate instead of arguing over figments of your imagination.

 

[LordOpie]

Looks to me like it's more deadly driving to work everyday than it is to be a police officer once you get there...

Interesting.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Looks to me like it's more deadly driving to work everyday than it is to be a police officer once you get there...

i´d say, driving or riding in a car for 15k miles a year (or whatever the average time an american rides in a vehicle) would be more fitting.
commute would probably account for a fraction smaller than 50%, thus reducing the risk ever further.

 

[RenegadeRick]

43,443 motorists were killed on US highways last year. Taking the estimated population from the FBI link above of 279,200,617, I get 0.016% of the US population dying on the highways.

So when does the war on driving begin?

 

[LordOpie]

So when does the war on driving begin?

UKJason and Alexis have both joined the fight.

 

[binary visions]

So when does the war on women driving begin?

UKJason hasjoined the fight.

 

[chillindrdude]

you wear your body armor to the paintball games?

nope, i don't play paintball, nor am i the one calling LEOs cowards.

i don't oppose an investigation, what i do oppose is the knee-jerk reaction that it MUST have been a police over-reaction. or the assertion that LEOs are cowards. improper training...that could be up for debate.

 

[MikeD]

It's also strange to think how different that article would sound if the headline read "suspected armed robber" instead of "suspected playstation 3 thief."

This, of course, has no bearing on the situation, but is more of a comment on context. As I and Binary have pointed out, this is a way for people to vent their feelings as they construct a COMPLETELY unknown situation to suit their feelings.

It's entirely possible the cops were mistaken, willfully ignorant, or even malicious. It's equally possible the subject induced or even forced the police to act as they did. That's all we can say about it.

MD

 

[syadasti]

It's also strange to think how different that article would sound if the headline read "suspected armed robber" instead of "suspected playstation 3 thief."

We aren't talking a extremely violent robbery - no stabbing, shooting, concussion, or broken bones. The police knew exactly what took place:

two white men in a gold Pontiac pulled up to Raines' car, struck him with a six-inch blunt object and stole his purchases, leaving him with bumps and bruises, UNCW police said.

 

[MikeD]

We aren't talking a extremely violent robbery - no stabbing, shooting, concussion, or broken bones. The police knew exactly what took place:

Hah. I'm going to whack you with a 6-inch blunt object and see how you feel about it. And the fact that a subject is willing to do violence, especially with a weapon, for a triviality like a Playstation should indeed get any responsible cop's hackles up.

However, this gets neither of us closer to understanding what actually happened in those few seconds at the door, the fine details of which are the true measure of the evet.

And the point, anyhow, was one of context. The subject was wanted for assault with a deadly weapon, and saying that does indeed change the overtone compared to calling him a playstation thief.

 

[syadasti]

I would hardly call a 6" blunt object a deadly weapon.

Would you call some assaulting you with a much longer nightstick, a purpose built weapon for beating, assault with a deadly weapon? Damn police assaulting people with deadly weapons all the time merely to keep people under control

 

[MikeD]

I would hardly call a 6" blunt object a deadly weapon.

Would you call some assaulting you with a much longer nightstick, a purpose built weapon for beating, assault with a deadly weapon? Damn police assaulting people with deadly weapons all the time merely to keep people under control

Keep rolling those e-eyes. A nightstick is a deadly weapon. Police are trained to treat it as such, and use it in a manner congruent with the use-of-force continuum. An ASP, in its (imagine that) 6" closed form or its longer extended form, is likewise considered a deadly weapon. It doesn't have to be (and generally isn't authorized to be, except in limited circumstances) used with intent to cause death or grevious bodily injury; strikes are generally limited to certain target areas on the body meant to cause pain and temporarily disabling nerve damage (common peronial nerve, mostly), but if you target certain areas, it's deadly.

Either way, the object used in the attack met the elements of the statute for assault with a deadly weapon, which a judge confirmed when he signed the warrant. The statute might only require that the object be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, but I'm no expert on state law; that's mere speculation. I'll trust the judge's opinion of what's legally coherent in this case. And since it met the definition of assault with a deadly weapon, the newspaper headline could have referenced that and been 100% accurate, and completely changed the tone of the article, which was really my only point, and which, again, has no bearing on the actual incident under discussion.

And unless there's anything new for me to say, I'll back out now, because I've basically done nothing but repeat myself here.

MD

EDIT: Ah, I see, the "headline" was just your thread title...the actual news headline reads somewhat differently (and with far less slant). Maybe that's why you seem to take the observation so personally? Mind you, I've neither defended nor attacked the actions of the police in this case...

 

[syadasti]

EDIT: Ah, I see, the "headline" was just your thread title...the actual news headline reads somewhat differently (and with far less slant). Maybe that's why you seem to take the observation so personally? Mind you, I've neither defended nor attacked the actions of the police in this case...

Its not my headline, its Engadget's where I first saw the story...

PS3 crime spree, part V: Suspected PS3 thief killed by deputy

 

[jaydee]

I would hardly call a 6" blunt object a deadly weapon.

Would you call some assaulting you with a much longer nightstick, a purpose built weapon for beating, assault with a deadly weapon? Damn police assaulting people with deadly weapons all the time merely to keep people under control

I don't know about that. A pistol is a 6" blunt object if you don't pull the trigger. Obviously the repercussions here were a lot more serious than the crime and we don't even know if the kid was the criminal. But in general I'd say that if you don't want grief from cops, don't commit crimes. Any kind of armed crime means that the criminal has no problem with using excess force on his victim. Sucks to be him when the cops play by the same rules.

 

[binary visions]

Would you call some assaulting you with a much longer nightstick, a purpose built weapon for beating, assault with a deadly weapon?

Yes. Yes, I would.

You could very easily kill someone with it, thus it is a deadly weapon.

 

[syadasti]

Obviously the repercussions here were a lot more serious than the crime and we don't even know if the kid was the criminal.

That is point. The victim was arguably not seriously injured, and the primary intent was to steal. How can you say the real thieves in this case used excessive force with "bumps and bruises" as outcome?

Under NC law this assault and battery was a misdemeanor not a serious crime (ie felony):

14‑33. Misdemeanor assaults, batteries, and affrays, simple and aggravated; punishments.
(c) Unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who commits any assault, assault and battery, or affray is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor if, in the course of the assault, assault and battery, or affray, he or she:

(1) Inflicts serious injury upon another person or uses a deadly weapon;

 

[LordOpie]

I would hardly call a 6" blunt object a deadly weapon.

wow, to the letter, that's exactly what my woman said last night!

 

[MikeD]

That is point. The victim was arguably not seriously injured, and the primary intent was to steal. How can you say the real thieves in this case used excessive force with "bumps and bruises" as outcome?

Under NC law this assault and battery was a misdemeanor not a serious crime (ie felony):

Damn, I SAID I'd shut up, but...

Josh, the severity of the crime has nothing to do with this. Heck, even if the kid wasn't the criminal, a criminal, or anything else has anything to do with this. The standards for the use of force can indeed take background into account, but the essential measure of whether force was appropriate or not is determined from the fact pattern of the incident at the doorway.

Even if the subject had simply answered the door, and been completely unknown to the police and unrelated to the case, he still could have acted in a way that justified force, lethal or otherwise. I'm going to offer the example of him getting panicked and trying to rush out the door...something as simple as that could have easily created the perception, in the split second he moved, that he was attempting to go for a police officer's weapon. That creates a lethal-force situation under a US Constitutional standard, despite the fact that I'm sure you think that's not correct due to the presence of other officers or the option of non-lethal force from an intermediate weapon or a chemical irritant. (State constitution and department policy may be different, although the equal protection clause should extend full constituitional standards to the state's rules...I'm just no expert on state law).

Or the police could have spazzed out or acted in a deliberately criminal manner when they killed him as he answered the door and/or attempted to comply with their instructions. And that's the key info that NONE of us have. (An example of this...he opens the door holding the black Playstation controller...two cops yell at him, one telling him to freeze and the other to get down. He hesitates, but moves the controller towards the police as he half-crouches. One officer shoots on instinct as the controller comes up--unjustified, if conditions were such that the controller would have been visible as such to a reasonable person at the door--and other officers fire in a 'sympathetic fire' phenomenon. The dog comes running, and the officers shoot it, as well.)

And what's the point of showing us that assault with a deadly weapon is a misdemeanor? No one has argued that it was a felony, nor is it material to the incident. Nor does it change the wordplay issue...it's still assualt with a deadly weapon vs. Playstation theft.

Ed: Federal Class A misdemeanors carry up to a year in jail, so I'd certainly call that a 'serious' crime. So would you if you were beaten up and had your crap stolen. (Not that it was a fed crime; just offering it for comparison, as most states have year or longer max sentences for Class A as well.) You make it sound like this guy was summarily executed by the police for j-walking. And there's some of the confusion we're suffering...the death was not execution; it was not punishment for the crime. The death resulted from an interaction with police, the details of which are essentially unrelated to the facts which led to the police showing up at the door. The only thing that can be said in that direction is that the subject had shown an inclination towards violence, justifying the police taking a cautious and forceful approach towards serving the warrant.

MD

 

[syadasti]

There was egregious problem with procedures used - the LEOs dangerously escalated the situation when they should have been aiming for the opposite. That is the criminal aspect of this incident and why its now a high profile investigation.

I know we don't know the exact sequence of events, but I still don't see how a tactical assault in suburbia is justified for a misdemeanor. Why couldn't the LEOs surround the house, block his car with their vehicle, and tell him to come out or at the very least take more time to access the situation before they went in with guns blazing like a bunch of cowboys? What actions in his suspected crime showed he could be such a grave threat to lives of these LEOs?

The victim that was beat up wasn't even knocked out or bleeding. There was no serious bodily injury inflicted, the thieves wanted to steal the hot ticket items.

In case someone suggests otherwise the legal definition of serious injury:

SERIOUS BODILY INJURY - Bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. 18 USC

USDOJ - "Serious injury includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any unspecified injury requiring two or more days of hospitalization."

 

[binary visions]

There was egregious problem with procedures used

You don't know that.

I know we don't know the exact sequence of events

Not only do you not know the exact sequence of events, you don't know any of the events. Period. All you know is the outcome.

I still don't see how a tactical assault in suburbia is justified for a misdemeanor

There was no "tactical assault." They arrived, something happened after they arrived that caused them to break in the door and start shooting. We do not know what.

Why couldn't the LEOs surround the house, block his car with their vehicle, and tell him to come out or at the very least take more time to access the situation before they went in with guns blazing like a bunch of cowboys?

You have no idea what happened in the situation, so you cannot possibly suggest that calling for backup was a realistic scenario.

What actions in his suspected crime showed he could be such a grave threat to lives of these LEOs?

The victim that was beat up wasn't even knocked out or bleeding. There was no malicious intent or serious bodily injury inflicted, the thieves just wanted to steal the hot ticket items.

It doesn't matter what his crime was. MikeD has very carefully gone over this in a very articulate manner, try reading his post again and it might become clearer to you. You have no reason to believe they showed up at his door wanting to shoot him. They reacted to the situation that occurred after they arrived at the scene.

If a traffic stop results in the driver pulling a gun on the officer, should the officer not react appropriately to the weapon since the person in question was "only" stopped for a petty traffic violation? There's a big gap here where we don't know how the suspect reacted to two police officers on his doorstep. Until you know that, there isn't a way in the world for you to make a judgment on how the situation was handled.

 

[syadasti]

We DO know there is witness testimony that the suspect did not get a chance to answer the door:

They were playing Tiger Woods PGA Tour when they heard a knock on the door.

Strickland, who sat on a couch closest to the front door, got up to answer, Rhoton said.

As Strickland approached the door, law enforcement officials knocked it down and "there was a bunch of yelling," he said.

"Four or five shots went off and they killed him," he said. "They pinned me down to the ground and told me not to move anything."

The LEOs jumped into an unknown situation which dangerously escalated resulting in this kid's death. There would not be an story and high profile investigation otherwise.

 

[chillindrdude]

We DO know there is witness testimony that the suspect did not get a chance to answer the door:

that "witness" wouldn't be the victim's friend and partner in crime would it? don't you think his "version" is gonna be alittle biased at the very least and outright fabrication at the other end of the spectrum?

i am biased here as well, but it sounds like to me, they were enjoying the fruits of their labor when they were apprehended

 

[syadasti]

His roommates were not arrested, so you have no point.

Update...

Shots likely hit door, then teen
Pathologist: Police bullets passed through 'intervening targets'

By Ken Little
Staff Writer
ken.little@starnewsonline.com



Law enforcement officers may have fired through a front door Friday night as sheriff's deputies and University of North Carolina Wilmington police officers attempted to serve an arrest warrant on Peyton Strickland in connection with the Nov. 17 robbery of two PlayStation 3 game stations from a UNCW student.

Strickland, 18, was shot in the head and right shoulder area and fatally wounded in the house he lived in at 533 Long Leaf Acres Drive. Strickland's death is attributed to a gunshot wound to the head, said Charles L. Garrett, the pathologist who performed the autopsy.

Garrett said Tuesday that the state medical examiner's office in Jacksonville is working with the State Bureau of Investigation in trying to determine at what range the bullets that struck the Cape Fear Community College student were fired from.

"Some of the bullets went through intervening targets, probably the door," Garrett said. Both bullets that struck Strickland passed through him into the house, he added.

New Hanover County Sheriff Sid Causey has refused to divulge the names of the deputies on the sheriff's office Emergency Response Team that served the warrant.

The Star-News and other media outlets will file a complaint today in New Hanover County Superior Court requesting an order compelling disclosure of public records. The names of the three deputies who have been placed on administrative leave, along with the names of the other deputies present when the warrant was served, are sought.

"I am not releasing their names, their address or anything about them until the investigation is complete. If there's anything in the investigation that was done wrong, I will take responsibility for it," Causey said Tuesday. "The investigation is going to be finished soon and we will reveal all the facts."

Causey said he saw postings on several Web sites that threatened harm to the deputies involved in the incident.

"It's stuff like that that's being suggested that concerns me a whole lot when I think somebody is going to go to an officer's house to harm him, his family or anybody else," Causey said.

"When the investigation is finished, we'll review it, and if there is any action that needs to be taken, we'll take it."

Authorities charged a third man Monday in connection with the robbery of Justin Raines in a UNCW parking lot. Braden Delaney Riley, 21, was charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon and breaking or entering a motor vehicle.

Riley, a Cape Fear Community College student who gave an Apex address, had a District Court appearance date Tuesday and is free on $30,000 secured bond.

Ryan D. Mills, 20, of 4500 Crawdad Court, is charged with the same offenses, as Strickland would have been. Riley and Mills have both entered not guilty pleas. Both have Jan. 4 appearance dates in felony District Court.

The language in Riley's arrest warrant is similar to the one issued for Mills. The warrant states that the men stole the two PlayStation units, worth $641 each, using a blunt object to assault Raines during the robbery. Raines had waited about three days in line outside the Sigmon Road Wal-Mart to purchase the coveted PlayStation 3 systems.

UNCW police said after the robbery that Raines was followed back to the college from the Wal-Mart parking lot by four men in a gold sedan. The car and two of the suspects were captured on a surveillance video in the store parking lot.

A search warrant of the Long Leaf Acres Drive house where the shooting occurred that was released to the media Monday had one page containing items seized by deputies omitted. That page was provided Tuesday and showed that in addition to shell casings and fragments, a PlayStation 3 game system was seized, along with a marijuana cigarette and bong pipe. Other property seized included more shell casings and fragments, four bongs and the front door of the house, according to the documents released Monday.

A blue sheet flapped in the doorway of the Long Leaf Acres Drive house Tuesday afternoon.

Candles from a vigil held the night before by friends of Strickland still flickered inside glass sleeves at the end of the driveway.

Neighbors said that earlier in the day, several young men loaded a rental trailer with household possessions and drove off.

A funeral service for Strickland will be held at 2 p.m. today in Durham.

Ken Little: 343-2389

ken.little@starnewsonline.com

 

[RenegadeRick]

i am biased here as well, but it sounds like to me, they were enjoying the fruits of their labor when they were apprehended

You don't KNOW that either. That PS3 could have been purchased legitimately... or not.

 

[RenegadeRick]

syadasti:

Just checking my reading comprehension...

The article suggests the kid may have been shot through the door?

wow. those are some tough actions to defend.

 

[bjanga]

Or, the rounds may have passed through the kid and then through the door.

BOOM! HEADSHOT!

 

[LordOpie]

The article suggests the kid may have been shot through the door?

which makes you wonder how they knew that they were shooting the suspect.

 

[Silver]

The article suggests the kid may have been shot through the door?

wow. those are some tough actions to defend.

No kidding. Using wallhacks is just lame.

 

[LordOpie]

No kidding. Using wallhacks is just lame.

 

[Random]

No kidding. Using wallhacks is just lame.

Am I a bad person for laughing at this?

 

[Silver]

Am I a bad person for laughing at this?

Yes. You're better than the person who made the joke though...

 

[lovebunny]

Am I a bad person for laughing at this?

i laughed

 

[bjanga]

so whats the deal with the deputy who was fired and sentenced?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

UKJason and Alexis have both joined the fight.

me?
nah, am more busy at this point rallying support and lobbying for the formation of death squads going into the slums and wiping out thieves, kidnappers and rapists but more importantly the mofo who stole a blinker light and a used wiper from my car and put a huge dash in the paint. (what he sold the blinker for? probably $3.... how much it costs me to have the entire quarterpanel painted and a new blinker? $115), yeah, include him and all his family up to 2 degrees on the death squad bill. and add the unborn and the dog for the inconvenience of the wiper.

man, am starting to consider moving into the gated suburbs 30 hellish minutes of traffic away from lima and getting a telecommuting job.... or moving to new zealand or something if my death squad idea fails.
seems in the last 4 months my stuff has been vandalized way more than in the other 23 years of my life combined. unlucky streak i guess. nobody else seems to have these many problems lately.