Here's a little gem:
A New Hanover County grand jury today declined to indict ex-deputy Christopher Long in the shooting death of a teenager he meant to arrest.
Special prosecutors with the state Attorney General's Office unsuccessfully sought to have the grand jury indict Long for voluntary manslaughter in the shooting of Peyton Strickland, 18, a college student from Durham. On Dec. 1, Long was part of a sheriff's paramilitary unit that went to Strickland's house to search for a stolen video game machine and arrest Strickland and a friend on robbery and assault charges.
The grand jury deliberated for more than an hour Tuesday afternoon but gave up just after 6 p.m. and returned this morning.
A courtroom full of Long's and Strickland's family and friends sat in near silence waiting for the foreman's to emerge from a private conference room and announce the panel's decision. It was the first time Strickland's father, Don Strickland, has seen Long; they sat 10 feet apart and never met eyes.
Long said he fired his fully automatic submachine gun because he thought he mistakenly thought he heard gun blasts. Instead, he was hearing the officers' battering ram hammering Strickland's door. Long admitted in an affidavit filed Monday that his hearing was impaired by an earpiece, a hood and helmet.
In an unusual step in grand jury proceedings, a judge allowed Long to tell the grand jury what he recalled about the night he killed Strickland. The judge also permitted Peyton Strickland's father to testify, another rare move.
Prosecutors asked the judge to remind the grand jurors this morning that 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.
Wow, we must not be getting the full story. For them not to INDICT seems impossible.
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.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."
That's my issue too....inferior cops...
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.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.
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.Why did the sheriff carry a submachine gun?? Is that standard issue??
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.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.
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?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.
Don't be gay Sparky.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...
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.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...
If I was a cop, I'd shoot your dog for sh!ts and giggles.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...
Or just for lunch.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.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.......
Perhaps the GJ simply felt the DA's charges weren't supported, but a lesser criminal charges might be.
Wait, now "charging dog" turned into "large aggressive dog".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.
What, you got tired of being smacked around in the Sicko thread?If I was a cop, I'd shoot your dog for sh!ts and giggles.
by any chance does this involve your many experiments between chunky vs. smooth?I know dogs, and those things are not the same.
They love peanut butter...by any chance does this involve your many experiments between chunky vs. smooth?
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.Wait, now "charging dog" turned into "large aggressive dog".
I know dogs, and those things are not the same.
Precisely.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.
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.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..
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!)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..
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!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..
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.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.
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.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.
Against a dog, for the many reasons I've outlined above, this may often be a use of lethal force.
That's all.
And how is that different?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.
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.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.