Suspected Playstation 3 Thief Killed by Deputy
- Thread starter syadasti
- Start date
Looks like they figured out what happened. PO definitely in the wrong, but only time will tell if criminal charges can happen. He's definitely going to get his ass sued off in a Bivens action...
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16405096.htm
"There seems to be a rush to hang Long," said Donald Penix, a retired Charlotte police officer and president of the N.C. Fraternal Order of Police. "Police officers must make a decision within seconds, and everyone else has a lifetime to tear it apart and say 'He should have done this or that.' "
Long shot Strickland through the door of the Wilmington home Strickland was renting after mistaking the thud of a battering ram for the blast of a gun, New Hanover County District Attorney Ben David has said.
Long's SWAT-style unit was barging through Strickland's unlocked door to help search for a stolen PlayStation 3 video-game machine and arrest Strickland on charges that he stole it and beat the UNC-Wilmington student who owned it. Strickland, an 18-year-old Cape Fear Community College student, wasn't armed.
Ten days later, the district attorney appealed to a grand jury to indict Long on a charge of second-degree murder. He argued that Long's decision was so reckless and his mistaken hearing so unbelievable that his actions amounted to murder.
The grand jury didn't buy it. But David has vowed that the investigation is not over and has suggested he might try to present a charge to a new grand jury.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16405096.htm
"There seems to be a rush to hang Long," said Donald Penix, a retired Charlotte police officer and president of the N.C. Fraternal Order of Police. "Police officers must make a decision within seconds, and everyone else has a lifetime to tear it apart and say 'He should have done this or that.' "
Long shot Strickland through the door of the Wilmington home Strickland was renting after mistaking the thud of a battering ram for the blast of a gun, New Hanover County District Attorney Ben David has said.
Long's SWAT-style unit was barging through Strickland's unlocked door to help search for a stolen PlayStation 3 video-game machine and arrest Strickland on charges that he stole it and beat the UNC-Wilmington student who owned it. Strickland, an 18-year-old Cape Fear Community College student, wasn't armed.
Ten days later, the district attorney appealed to a grand jury to indict Long on a charge of second-degree murder. He argued that Long's decision was so reckless and his mistaken hearing so unbelievable that his actions amounted to murder.
The grand jury didn't buy it. But David has vowed that the investigation is not over and has suggested he might try to present a charge to a new grand jury.
Here's a little gem:
Veteran law enforcement officials say they don't need public scrutiny because police officers are already their own worst critics.
I wonder why no "veteran law enforcement officials" didn't attach their names to that assertion...or if that is the reporter playing the "many people say" game...
That dude's name is Penix.
Wow, we must not be getting the full story. For them not to INDICT seems impossible.
"their only job is to decide whether there is probable cause that a crime occurred and that Long committed it. They feared the grand jurors are trying to weigh evidence of guilt or innocence deliberations that are supposed to be saved for full trial in Superior Court."
There's going to be a rather large civil suit here, I'd imagine.
Welcome to the state of the Duke Lacrosse Grand jury. Apparently grand jury indictments have gone down by a marked amount sense the "turns" in the Duke case.
You guys are missing most obvious evidence in poor judgement and hard-on mentality of the sheriff-
He killed the guy's dog!!! When you hear a barking dog and still charge-in you're looking to start shooting. Why did the sheriff carry a submachine gun?? Is that standard issue??
Yes, I'd rather live in a society where I"m robbed by punks with blunt objects than live in a society where dirty/inferior cops have the right for unwarranted search, seisure and the right to shoot me in my own house without provocation.
I'm sure it will come out that he was a suspected terrorist in a sleeper cell and we are all safer because of his death.
He killed the guy's dog!!! When you hear a barking dog and still charge-in you're looking to start shooting. Why did the sheriff carry a submachine gun?? Is that standard issue??
Yes, I'd rather live in a society where I"m robbed by punks with blunt objects than live in a society where dirty/inferior cops have the right for unwarranted search, seisure and the right to shoot me in my own house without provocation.
I'm sure it will come out that he was a suspected terrorist in a sleeper cell and we are all safer because of his death.
That's my issue too.
We need to pay them more to attract better candidates -and- remove any sort of affirmative action from the hiring process.
Actually, most police are trained to shoot a charging dog. Your conclusion that this has something to do with an improper mentality is simply wrong.
Unfortunately, dogs don't respond to verbal commands like "Freeze! Police! Hands up!" and you can't wrestle and cuff them. Sucks, and personally, I'd rather shoot a person who presented a deadly-force level threat than a dog that's just being a dog, but I also won't let a dog get its jaws on me, especially if there are other threats in the area that haven't been cleared.
If I had the choice, I'd use spray or a baton on a dog [most dogs] first, too, but if I had a gun in hand and a dog was charging, there'd be no way to transition to another weapon before the dog closed the distance.
Please. Yeah, I'm sure he just brought along a gun from home. And if he'd used a handgun, things would have been sooo much different.
A submachine gun is actually quite a bit more accurate than a handgun, and shoots the same round, so he's actually being quite a bit safer carrying one in terms of potential shots gone off-target.
I'm sure you find the sub-gun indicative of an improper mindset, but you're also not the one serving warrants.
Quit the hyperbole. The sheriff may have acted wrongly in shooting the teen, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate his presence or entry into the house. Nor does anyone, anywhere, say police have a right to violate anyone's rights. In fact, a grand jury didn't even indict this guy.
Grand juries are groups of citizens like you, not some tribunal of sympathetic, cover-our-own-ass cops, and getting an indictment out of one is typically supremely easy if you've got anything resembling a decent case.
The officer must be and is judged on the facts known to the officer at the time and under a reasonable-person standard, not from an after-the fact viewpoint.
None of this changes the fact that the officer might have been wrong, mind you, but there's a system at work, and for those of you frothing for his blood, well, he's still going to get his ass sued off and will likely face additional criminal charges. Perhaps the GJ simply felt the DA's charges weren't supported, but a lesser criminal charges might be.
So, any time a police officer knocks on my door and enters, he's trained to shoot my dog who will come up to him to see who the new guy is?
And people wonder why not everyone trusts the police...
Don't be gay Sparky.
If your dog charges the PO aggressively, he's trained to shoot it. He doesn't have to shoot it, mind you, but he's trained and authorized to do it...or at least most are. I can't say what every PD in the nation does.
Now, there's a huge contextual difference between entering a house forcibly in order to take a subject into custody (on a warrant unless there are delineated exigent circumstances) and knocking on your door to ask you some voluntary questions (about which you may or may not be the subject). And if he does knock politely and your large, aggressive dog charges him from inside the house, you might find your large, aggressive dog dead. And it doesn't matter if you think the dog isn't being aggressive. What matters is that the PO can articulate why, based on what he knew and observed at the time, he thought the dog was a threat.
Ed: And if he shoots your dachshund, there's likely no reasonable way he can articulate that the dog was a threat, even if the dog was really pissed off. It all comes down to the reasonable person standard, measured from the point of view of the police officer's knowledge, experience, and training.
Ed II: Also, if the PO is entering voluntarily, he's not going to have a drawn gun, so he can easily reach for a spray or a baton or a taser instead. Most officers I know would do that if they had the option or opportunity, unless the dog was obviously a flesh-eating moster cerebrus dog.
If I was a cop, I'd shoot your dog for sh!ts and giggles.
Problem is that most NC Grand Juries see all DAs as Mike Nifong right now.
Wait, now "charging dog" turned into "large aggressive dog".
I know dogs, and those things are not the same.
I was thinking more along the lines of a lab bounding over to say hi. And from what you've said, the police officer would be justified in shooting the dog. He just has to think the dog was aggressive, which has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not the dog was in fact aggressive. In fact, he just needs to be scared of dogs. I can walk my big black lab and people cross the street sometimes because they don't like the fact that he's a big black dog. He's also a flunked out guide dog who loves people and will come bounding up to you when you enter the house...
(Who shot the dog in this case? Same officer?)
by any chance does this involve your many experiments between chunky vs. smooth?
They love peanut butter...
Well, "charging" connotes aggressiveness, not friendliness. And like I said, it's a reasonable-person standard. To be considered a threat, a dog would have to be of suitable size to actually cause harm. Any grown lab is well within that category.
Precisely.
But still, the police officer needs to be able to say *exactly* why he perceived the dog as aggressive. Such as running at full speed with a lowered head, teeth bared, growling...yeah, "charging", not "bounding over."
Ed: In all seriousness, if there's doubt as to these facts, a veterinary forensics expert might be able to prove whether the dog was charging at the time it was shot... http://www.dvmnews.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=146676 But that's just going to be fuel for your lawsuit, not likely a criminal charge against an officer. Then again, anything's possible.
There was a cool NPR interview with a forensic vet a month or three back. Recounted some digusting stuff in the way of animal abuse, but it's cool she can do the job she does.
Well, the police knew of the house, that's why they asked for help from the sheriff's department- so I'm sure they knew of the Sheppard. How did they think it would react when they rammed the door? Goes to mentality, lack of planning and tactics.
Yeah, female machine gun shooter to neck was the best scene in the movie "Miami Vice". (I know I just lost all credibility with the Monkey with that statement, but hey- I grew up in the 80's!)
Excellent point, but you know politics of counties have a broad range, thus I don't live in an all conservative or all liberal area. I'm still sick of these RAmbo law enforcement officers, some of which are my own family!
So, to sum up, a trigger happy officer who is scared of dogs would be justified in shooting my lab. I didn't know that. If a police officer ever does come to my door, the first thing I'll do is ask him if he's scared of dogs.
Anyways, it's a stupid definition of threat. Ask a vet who's more likely to bite, a lab or a chihuahua. My survey size of 2 is much more on guard when a chihuahua is in the room...
I'm still confused as to who shot the dog. That would be interesting to know.
Silver, this isn't necessarily about dogs per se. A police officer always has a right to defend himself against a threat or to use a reasonable amount of force to do his job.
"Threat" is defined by his perception of such. It MUST meet a reasonable person standard in a court of law. "Reasonable person" includes what the officer knew, experienced, and perceived at the time of the action, not facts unknown at the time and/or revealed later in a court of law.
Against a dog, for the many reasons I've outlined above, this may often be a use of lethal force.
That's all.
"Threat" is defined by his perception of such. It MUST meet a reasonable person standard in a court of law. "Reasonable person" includes what the officer knew, experienced, and perceived at the time of the action, not facts unknown at the time and/or revealed later in a court of law.
Against a dog, for the many reasons I've outlined above, this may often be a use of lethal force.
That's all.
No, that's not what you said. You said a police officer has a right to defend himself against what he perceives as a threat, whether or not the threat is actually real. That's very different.
And how is that different?
Ed: Ah, looks like you didn't see my edit, sorry. Yes, "Threat" is defined by what he perceives. It's called "objective reasonableness" and has a long and established history in Supreme Court case law.
Problem is, that only applies to shooting a person. Like you said earlier, shooting a dog isn't going to land an officer in court, unless it's a civil case.
Where the guy whose dog is shot will get the economic value of the dog, and probably nothing else. Crappy deal.
Worst of all for the dog. Like I said, it's a dog doing what dogs do, either being friendly or aggressive in defense of its owner/home.
But objective reasonableness applies to any threat the officer might face, human or otherwise. And in a .5 second perception of a large animal coming in your direction, perhaps while trying to control a dangerous and possibly armed human subject, sometimes an officer has to make a decision like this.
Whether these guys lawfully shot the dog on this house entry is another story entirely. I don't know what happened there. None of us do. Totally possible the guys went cowboy and killed both the teen and the dog in a fit of adrenaline-fueled idiocy, or performed a professional and calm assessment of the scene and took appropriate action. Given what we're seeing as fallout/reports, I'm guessing it's closer to the former.
But objective reasonableness applies to any threat the officer might face, human or otherwise. And in a .5 second perception of a large animal coming in your direction, perhaps while trying to control a dangerous and possibly armed human subject, sometimes an officer has to make a decision like this.
Whether these guys lawfully shot the dog on this house entry is another story entirely. I don't know what happened there. None of us do. Totally possible the guys went cowboy and killed both the teen and the dog in a fit of adrenaline-fueled idiocy, or performed a professional and calm assessment of the scene and took appropriate action. Given what we're seeing as fallout/reports, I'm guessing it's closer to the former.