What is Digg?127 Comments
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+102the paperwork inaccurately said that the grand jury voted to charge the cop with murder when, in fact, the grand jury voted AGAINST charging the cop.
If the jury foreman had filled out his paperwork correctly, the cop would never have been charged with murder in the first place.
Whether that's right or wrong is a separate question. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+69Wolfboy is correct.
And the article is horrendously written, if not intentionally deceptive. The text under the cops picture reads:
"A murder charge against Deputy Christopher Long was dismissed when a New Hanover grand jury made a paperwork error."
when actually, the cop was indicted when the jury made a paperwork error. He was released when it was realized that he was only indicted because of an error.
Mind you, I think the cop should be shot. But he wasn't released because of a paperwork error. He was held because of the paperwork error, and released when it was realized that he was being held because of an error.
So this is inaccurate. - nicerobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32@Monolith2 Whoa! Welcome to the world where a "simple", admitted clerical _mistake_ can't be corrected. If I make a mistake on a official form, I can change it, initial it and it's corrected. This issue is entirely different than other problems that can arise in court that can't simply be corrected.
- NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -36/+59Thats just bs... you can't let a murder off just because of a paper error!!! That doesn't changed the fact that someone was killed...
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25"backward and corrupt police
+
wanna-be thug stoner theif's"
+
diggers who don't know about the word "thieves" - jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29If you play with guns and have photos of yourself with them on the internet.
Then you Mug someone and steal his goods.
And when the police arrives at your home to arrest you, you have holding something in your hand, that in a split second may look like a gun.
It's a series of event leading to ones death, but I wouldn't call this unfortunate as the kid has control over an assault and robbery. The accidental was due to his crime, i dont feel sorry for him. - KryptoniteKid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Seriosuly, though: if a cop is going to (mistakenly?) kill someone during a police raid, at least it's for a property crime and not for...
alleged drug activity
(http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman.shot.ap/index.html)
or having wagered a little too much on a few sporting events.
(http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6374) - elliam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19They are normal people who risk their lives every day.
If they feel they are in a situation where it's them or the other guy, they will act decisively. Bad things will obviously happen sometimes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15That is basically what they did. Did you not read the article? The Grand Jury voted NOT to indict. The wrong box was checked and he was indicted wrongly.
So...when the error was discovered they "rubbed it out and checked the right box" To NOT indict. - elliam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Cops have their hand on their gun because they don't know if the jackass in the car is going to shoot them to get out of a ticket. If you walked around with a giant target on you all the time you'd get a bit jumpy, too.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -30/+42Welcome to a world where we dont bypass laws "just because it's right." If you want to live in that kind of a place, move to China or North Korea.
Forcing people to follow a strict guideline for prosecuting people for murder (and every other crime) is what keeps us from becoming a totalitarian state.
And please, spare me the 50 unrelated comments about how bush has already gotten us there. - wild, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Its not a good reason to shoot the kid, but cops should carry guns. The criminals carry guns. Pretty much that simple.
- WillyWonka, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17How do you know the kid was a criminal? He never had his day in court. Do you believe everything you hear on the news?
- airiox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17I had a knife in my car in plane view when I was pulled over. It was just a steak knife that had been there for a while. When he mentioned it I didnt go all crazy, I didnt get offended I didn't think much of it. Why? Because I didnt do anything wrong and he wasn't accusing me of anything. He was just doing his job.
What do you care if a cop has his hand on his gun? Don't be a moron and don't break the law and he'll have no reason to use it.
This guy did those two exact opposites. He was a moron and he did break the law.
I can guarantee that if you were a cop and you were going to storm someones house that you thought was armed and dangerous and when you storm in and he has a black object in his hand that is the size of a gun, you too would shoot. - r00t3r, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18***** the bastards who follow people home from the store and rob them of everything and their PS3's that they worked for the money to buy.
And btw, ***** You for being a dumbass cop hater. - Kale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@shakebabies, "Attempt to impregnate" doesn't have the same ring to it.....
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Once again:
He was INDICTED by an error in paperwork. He was not RELEASED due to an error in paperwork. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Buried as inaccurate. The title is misleading-- the copy was not "freed on [a] paperwork error", he was *indicted* on a paperwork error. The text of the submission is also misleading, in exactly the same way.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Yeah, we should fire the whole department for shooting a drug abusing criminal who savagely beat someone to steal Playstation 3's.
No one should feel sorry for this kid. He was a punk, stoner kid and a bully. - saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I guess in your corner of Ethnicistan, they would have beheaded the foreman for making the mistake, beheaded the police officer for shooting, and beheaded the already dead criminal for stealing, and beheaded the guy who bought the PS3 for squandaring so much money that he could have given to the glorious democrotatorship that is Ethnicistan.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Actually, putting your hand on your weapon is pretty much standard police procedure.
With the way their holsters are made and when an officer has his hand in a certain place, it's damn near impossible to take his weapon and shoot him/her. It's more for their safety than an aggressive move. - red7ine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"The fact that the cop brandished his weapon because of somebody stealing something is unthinkable in my book." Then maybe you should actually try thinking, then. He wasn't shot for stealing something, he was shot because the cop allegedly heard gunfire as they were using a battering ram on the door.
My advice would be to read the article as opposed to spouting some nonsense rhetoric about "cops and peace keepers". Might save you from seeming like a total f-tard. - saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Nice to see you didn't RTFA.
He was held due to a technicality. Released when they finally figured out the error and realized that he wasn't being charged. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@shakebabies
"so the option to bury something as inaccurate exist?-- it doesn't mean you have to ***** broadcast it to everyone on the page."
I disagree. It is useful to let people know the nature of the inaccuracy, so that they can see for themselves (as can be seen here). Burying it as inaccurate is not effective unless many people do it. Many people might do it if it is pointed out to them.
"instead of burying things as inaccurate and thinking your doing some great service to this community by spamming the fact, go watch/read news sources you know to be credible."
and the great service you do by posting this is ... what? who ever said each comment must be a "great service"?
This story is inaccurate, and from reading the comments, it is apparent many have been misled by it. The cop did not get off because of a technicality or paperwork error. He got off because a jury decided not to indict him. The paperwork error was that it was mistakenly thought they did indict him. They did not do so, and did not intend to do so. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This isn't inaccurate. It's inflammatory.
The whole article and this post were designed to put pressure on the Grand Jury and the DA 's office so that they will go back in and INDICT him as that's what the paper and the submitter would like to happen.
There should be a special button to tag something as just flat out inflammatory, incite-ful, etc... - 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6if it wasn't a wireless controller,
he would of had to set it down to walk to the door
sony's fault, lawsuit pending - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No, he was INDICTED by an error in paperwork. He was not RELEASED due to an error in paperwork.
- shakebabies, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10"***** this!" "***** that!" blah blah blah....
can't we come up with better ways to say things? - rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@dime
They checked true bill, realized it was a mistake, and made a heavy check mark by 'not a true bill' and initialed it. The article is misleading as they just say a "heavy mark" implying that a pen had somehow accidentally made a very heavy random mark or something. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"you'd need a massive stereo to simulate real gunfire"
You've never fired a gun, have you? - orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What is truly sad is what is behind all this in the first place...a ***** toy! What is even more pathetic is this is not an isolated case, that being crimes committed for a toy.
If people put a quarter of the effort they put into these toys into their friends, family, relationships, helping others, I can ONLY IMAGINE what kind of world this would be. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Serve a warrant without guns? Wow. Yeah, good luck with that one.
- superfly007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3completely innaccurate headline. I can't believe people let this get to the front page.
- aaaleman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And that is why we need Rorschach.
Who Watches the Copmen? - spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it takes a "special" sort of man to put himself in that position everyday.
- 4ster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think this mistake won't be a problem...see Rules of Criminal Procedure--
Rule 36. Clerical Error............."After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission." - gcauthon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@nicerobot
They'll just convene a new grand jury. Hopefully the next group doesn't elect an idiot for their foreman. People need to take their civic responsibilities seriously.
How fast did this moron just fly through the form? He got to the boxes that basically state "indictment" or "no indictment" and then he checked the one for "no indictment". Instead of asking for a new form he crossed out his check mark, checked the other box and initialed it.
What does he think, this is as insignificant as a typo on a $10 check? It's a murder indictment for crying out loud! Get a new f**king form! - spazoidspam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4While I don't think murder would be the correct charge, I think Involuntary Manslaughter would definitely fit here. This cop needs to serve some time, just because the kid was probably guilty of armed robbery doesn't mean he deserved to die without a trial. There is no excuse for killing him.
- colmenar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think that some of you guys are confusing the "reason" for some cops to be trigger-happy-paranoid with it being an "excusable" not-punishable behaviour.
That is, if I am scared ***** walking down 125th street at midnight is not an excuse for me to shoot all passers by on my side of the street. dig it?
I understand many cops being paranoid but If they can not do their job properly then they should either quit or be reposted to do office work.
Reasonable force ... whats the meaning of that today? I wonder. - End_Joy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4OK... this guy was not running from the cops he was at his house where the police were serving a warrant. And this "kids" has been charged with assault before. So he is not all that innocent. He has broken someones jaw. Now he and 3 friends attack and mug this kid on a school campus at night after following him home from Walmart? Looks like he was starting his life of crime to me. While theft is not life threatening, assault may be... They do have guns in the house and he has been charged with assault before, could end up as a gun fight.
- qsqueeq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How did they see a black object in his hand when they shot through the door? RTFA. The cop shot because he thought he heard gunshots. These 'gunshots' turned out to be the damn battering ram that was used right in front of the ignorant cop. The medical examiner confirmed the bullet hit something before Strickland, and the DA said that the bullets went through the door.
- thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, innocent until proven guilty, ***** that! the whole cop-killing unarmed suspects in their homes deal makes the whole judicial system go much quicker.
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4killing someone is not heroic
forgiving someone it much more a heroes virtue
btw wilmington cop's are some of the most corrupt police, you've lived in wilmington for how long? - Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2once a jury disposes of a case, it is allowed to watch the media reports.
This grand jury voted on the case on Monday afternoon. It watched the news on Monday night. - Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think anyone else is going to get the reference.
Also, I think Rorschach would kill the druggy/assailant/theif in a horrible way too, like dropping him down an elevator shaft. - r81984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They can after their job is done.
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The cop could not see the kid when he fired. He shot through a closed door. The bullet went through the door and hit the kid in the head.
The cop fired because he thought he heard a gunshot. What he actually heard was the sound of the police battering ram bashing the kid's front door. The other officers with him did not shoot.
Yes, people do make mistakes at work. How likely is it that your mistakes at your job will result in someone dying? The cops are supposed to train to avoid such mistakes. - dthacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And here is All of the articles from the local paper ...
http://starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=news30
you can follow the entire story there.
This has been a huge story here in town. Personally, I think that kid deserved it. Esp. after brutally beating the kid with a baseball bat for his PS3's in broad daylight on campus!! Dumbass criminal, got what he deserved! - saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's what they did. In the future, please RTFA before commenting.
- thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"He based his decision on his law enforcement training," McGuinness said Tuesday. "The fact that he shot was not a mistake. It was based on his belief that he was being fired upon."
It was a total mistake. This cop shot two unarmed people, and a dog because he "thought he heard a gun", when he was breaking into their apartment to arrest them. And, even if they did steal the PS3, our justice system is based on a standard of innocent until proven guilty.
What I gathered from this article is that if you're sitting at home watching a movie or something, and a cop bursts into your place without warning, "thinks he hears" a gunshot, it would be A-OK if he shot you in the head.
That seems pretty ***** to me. -
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is